Feds Want to Equipe Gliders With Transponders and Radios

[Larry Dighera]

If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
electrical systems too?

How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
this issue?

Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

Is the big-sky-theory a myth?


----------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/a-1314730~Feds_Call_for_Alerts_on_All_Air_Gliders.ht ml

Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
Apr 1, 2008 5:28 PM (25 days ago) By SCOTT SONNER, AP

RENO, Nev. (Map, News) - All gliders should be required to operate
with devices that alert air traffic controllers and other aircraft to
their presence, federal regulators recommended Tuesday, citing 60
near-collisions over the past two decades.

Gliders and other aircraft without engine-driven electrical systems
are exempt from a rule the Federal Aviation Administration imposed in
1988 requiring transponders for aircraft that operate near primary
airports and in airspace above 10,000 feet.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker recommended in a March 31 letter to the
board that the glider exemption be eliminated in part because of an
NTSB investigation into a collision between a glider and a private jet
about 40 miles southeast of Reno in August 2006.

In that case, the glider pilot - who parachuted to safety - had a
transponder on his aircraft but had turned it off to conserve battery
power. The Hawker 800XP airplane he collided with was significantly
damaged but was able to land safely at Reno-Tahoe International
Airport.

"As evidenced by this accident, aircraft that are not using or not
equipped with transponders and are operating in areas transited by air
carrier traffic represent a collision hazard," Rosenker wrote in the
letter first made public on Tuesday.

"This hazard has persisted more than 20 years since the Safety Board
initially expressed concern," he said.

Many gliders object to required use of transponders, saying they are
expensive and energy-consuming.

Of the 60 near mid-air collisions from 1988 to 2007, nine occurred in
northern Nevada. That's due primarily to the large number of gliders
that fly along the Sierra's eastern front where thermal air flows
create what enthusiasts describe as "world-class" gliding conditions.

Other frequent sites of near-collisions were Chicago and Washington,
D.C., with four each. Colorado Springs, Colo., had three.

More than 10 years before the latest incident, the FAA's Reno Flight
Standards District Office...

The FAA has 90 days to respond to the NTSB's recommendations, FAA
spokesman Ian Gregor said.

"We take NTSB recommendations very seriously," he said from Los
Angeles.

Leaders of the Soaring Society of America, based in Hobbs, N.M., and
other gliding enthusiasts oppose the NTSB's move. They advocate
alternatives including increasing awareness among pilots of areas
where gliders are often in use and implementing technology already
used in some parts of Europe that provides low-cost, real-time
information to pilots....

Most modern gliders have solar-powered batteries that help conserve
power, but even those don't help on longer flights, which can stretch
eight hours and cover 500 miles, he said.

"Having a transponder on all the time becomes a real problem with
energy conservation on your glider," he said.

Fred La Sor, an owner of Soaring NV in Minden who helped develop new
safety plans for the Reno area after the last accident, said it costs
$2,200 to $3,000 to put transponders on most gliders.

Besides, he said, most collisions or close calls involve not a glider
and a jet, but two gliders - something he said transponders would not
affect.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
> electrical systems too?

Almost certainly
>
> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
> this issue?

Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

Right-of-way rules have two uses:
1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
inclined to follow them).

And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>
> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?

No more than they do now.
>
> Is the big-sky-theory a myth?

It always has been a myth.

Vaughn

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
> > electrical systems too?
>
> Almost certainly
>
>
>
> > How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
> > this issue?
>
> Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
> and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>
> Right-of-way rules have two uses:
> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
> each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
> inclined to follow them).
>
> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
> methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>
>
>
> > Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
> > if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>
> No more than they do now.
>
>
>
> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>
> It always has been a myth.
>

No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
directions and altitudes.

The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>> electrical systems too?
>
> Almost certainly
>>

That's the way I saw it also.

Here are a few pertinent questions:

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
glider?

If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
low-cost glider training operations?

Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?

What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?

Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
each aircraft/glider modified?

Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?

>
>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>> this issue?
>
> Not at all.
>

So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
warn operators of glider proximity?

What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
radio communications?

>
>Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>

It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
liability.

>
>Right-of-way rules have two uses:
> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
>inclined to follow them).
>

Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

>
> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
>methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>

So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
too.

>>
>> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
>> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>
> No more than they do now.
>

I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
is enacted, the situation will change.

>>
>> Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>
> It always has been a myth.
>

At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?

>
>Vaughn
>

Thank you for your insightful comments.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote in
>:

>On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>>
>> It always has been a myth.
>>
>
>No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
>below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
>probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
>zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
>terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
>directions and altitudes.
>

It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
but a recipe for disaster, IMO.

>
>The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
>older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
>avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
>proposal.

What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
the NAS?

>However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
>A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>

That's a constructive suggestion.

How large must such a radar reflector be?

Will it activate TCAS?

Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

[F. Baum]

On Apr 27, 11:09*am, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
> The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
> older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
> avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
> proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
> necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.- Hide quoted text -
>
Just to clarify, The FAA does not classify a glider as an airplane so
this has nothing to do with the exemption. The press release is poorly
worded. There is some good anti collision technology available but it
is not legal (yet) to use in the US. Most soaring is not done near
busy terminal areas so the Mode C thing would pretty much be a waste
for most sailplanes.
F Baum

[Ron Natalie]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>> electrical systems too?
>
> Almost certainly
>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>> this issue?
>
> Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
> and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>
> Right-of-way rules have two uses:
> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
> each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
> inclined to follow them).
>

Further, the class preference in the rule applies to only certain
circumstances: converging courses from directions other than
head-on (or nearly so), when neither is distress, when one is
not overtaking the other, and when neither is in the final
approach to land.

None of this overrides the fundamental rule that starts off
91.113: do what you have to do to avoid collisions.
Unlike nautical rules, there's no stand-on vessel in
aviation.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>are
>>inclined to follow them).
>>
>
> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.

Not so.

If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do.
There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
have no horn in an aircraft). So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.

In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
the other aircraft. If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
are limited to left, right, and down. I probably can't climb, and I certainly
can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>>are
>>>inclined to follow them).
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
> Not so.
>

So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 6:02*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
> >> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>
> >> * *It always has been a myth.
>
> >No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
> >below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
> >probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
> >zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
> >terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
> >directions and altitudes.
>
> It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
> venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
> navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... *In fact,
> in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
> but a recipe for disaster, IMO.
>
>
>
> >The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
> >older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
> >avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
> >proposal.
>
> What is it that you see? *Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
> that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
> the NAS? *
>
> >However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
> That's a constructive suggestion. *
>
> How large must such a radar reflector be? *

It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
equally in all directions.
...
>
> Will it activate TCAS? *

Don't see how it could, TCAS uses the information in the active
return from the transponder.

> Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?

As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.

Cheers

[Mike Isaksen]

> Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
> By Scott Sonner, AP
>
> Leaders of the Soaring Society of America, based in Hobbs, N.M.,
> advocate....<snip> ....implementing technology already used in some
> parts of Europe that provides low-cost, real-time information to
> pilots....

I came across this technology on the web when I was researching the recent
ADS-B nprm. Looks like there's already some portable/handheld ADS-B type
equipment in use in Europe for the soaring community:

http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=26

http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=33

All based on some SSA technology called FLARM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM

Maybe this will be a low cost answer to spamcans being forced into the ADS-B
regs.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:55:53 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>>>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
>>>>are
>>>>inclined to follow them).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

I said no such thing. Kindly go back and read what I wrote.

Sorry, but I think you and I are done with this conversation.

Vaughn

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 6:55*am, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
> >>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and
> >>are
> >>inclined to follow them).
>
> > Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
> * *Not so.
>
> * *If the other plane does not see you, it can't be expected/trusted to behave
> according to the ROW regulations, so you can't know what it is going to do..
> There is usually little that you can do to get the other pilot's attention (you
> have no horn in an aircraft). *So it is up to the pilot that DOES see the other
> to do whatever it takes to avoid a collision...regulations be dammed.
>
> In that situation, I usually manuver in such a way that I never lose sight of
> the other aircraft. *If I happen to be driving a glider, my manuvering options
> are limited to left, right, and down. *I probably can't climb, and I certainly
> can't outrun an oncoming airplane.

To give way you must turn to the right. You can certainly dive fast
and turn as well if you really wan't to generate a big separation. But
remember he won't see you as easily if you go below him.. Radio calls?

Cheers

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Larry Dighera > wrote:
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?

In my opinion, right of way is essentially useless when flying.

There are three relevant situations:

- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. You have the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. He has the ROW.
- You are on a collision course with another aircraft. Neither has the
ROW.

In all three situations the only reasonable thing to is the same: maneuver
to avoid by any means necessary.

Thus your inference is essentially backwards. Not only should the power
plane get out of the way of the glider, but the glider should get out of
the way of the power plane.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Mike Isaksen]

WingFlaps wrote ...
> As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving
> targets as it can "see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.

OK then, time to pick up the AIM and look at Chapter 4, Section 5.1,
or look here (courtousy of the gov't nobody wants to pay for) in 4.5.1:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/

Check for the diff between Primary and Secondary radar.

FYI: Before 1998 the controllers in NY Center would routinely keep the
primary intensity dialed way down on their scopes, to a point where primary
targets could not be seen unless you were really looking for one. The reason
was too many the false reflections (heck, trucks on the bridges and
interstate overpasses would show up). I don't know much after they moved
onto the new scopes, and I can guess that after 9/11 it's all different now
(maybe).

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>> electrical systems too?
>
> Almost certainly
>>
>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>> this issue?
>
> Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.

Having flown into glider areas without either I or ATC seeing the
ships, I agree.

As well as I watch, gliders are small, sleek, sometimes fast, and very
hard to see. Every incremental improvement in spotting them
electronically is a good thing.

I don't want to hit a glider, and I haven't met a glider guider who
wants me to hit him or her. Talk about a lose-lose!

The "Big Sky" theory doesn't work so well here in busy Northeastern US
airspace.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 27, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
> >> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>
> >> It always has been a myth.
>
> >No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
> >below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
> >probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
> >zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
> >terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
> >directions and altitudes.
>
> It also doesn't apply within 150 miles of Los Angeles, and I'd
> venture, to other areas of large population concentrations, nor near
> navaids, nor airports (controlled or not), nor islands, ... In fact,
> in today's aerial environment, the Big-Sky-Theory is not only a myth,
> but a recipe for disaster, IMO.
>
>
>
> >The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
> >older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
> >avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
> >proposal.
>
> What is it that you see? Is it the necessity to outlaw all aircraft
> that were certified without electrical systems from operation within
> the NAS?
>

I think the FAR can be justifiably modified to only exempt airplanes
originally manufactured with no electrical system, but all airplanes
manufactured since 2008 (or whenever) operating in airspace where a
transponder is required should be equipped with one.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote in
>:

>> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>>
>> That's a constructive suggestion. *
>>
>> How large must such a radar reflector be? *
>
>It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
>in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
>no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
>occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
>equally in all directions.
>...

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?

More information:

Marine passive radar reflectors:
http://www.sailgb.com/c/radar_reflectors/

Modulating retro-reflector as a passive radar transponder
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=722404&isnumber=15618

>>
>> Will it activate TCAS? *
>
>Don't see how it could, TCAS uses the information in the active
>return from the transponder.
>

Yep.

>> Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?
>
>As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
>"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.
>

By 'primary' I mean the radio energy passively reflected by the
target, as opposed to a target generated as a result of a transponder
interrogation. I know ATC can 'see' primary targets, but I am under
the impression that controllers normally configure their 'scopes to
see only transponder targets to reduce screen clutter.

In any event, a passive radar reflector (or two) might be made part of
a system to address this issue, but I'm guessing the FAA would prefer
something capable of alerting TCAS systems.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 9:32*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
> >> That's a constructive suggestion. *
>
> >> How large must such a radar reflector be? *
>
> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
> >in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
> >no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
> >occupies *a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
> >equally in all directions.
> >...
>
> Interesting. *Thanks for the information. *
>
> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>
> More information:
>
> Marine passive radar reflectors:http://www.sailgb.com/c/radar_reflectors/
>
> Modulating retro-reflector as a passive radar transponderhttp://ieeexplore..ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=722404&is...
>
>
>
> >> Will it activate TCAS? *
>
> >Don't see how it could, *TCAS uses the information in the active
> >return from the transponder.
>
> Yep.
>
> >> Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?
>
> >As fas as I know ATC radar picks up as many moving targets as it cam
> >"see". Not sure what you mean by primary tho'.
>
> By 'primary' I mean the radio energy passively reflected by the
> target, as opposed to a target generated as a result of a transponder
> interrogation. *I know ATC can 'see' primary targets, but I am under
> the impression that controllers normally configure their 'scopes to
> see only transponder targets to reduce screen clutter.

Maybe, but I've seen a controller radar screen with computer-generated
vectors on it with no ID boxes. I assume they were planes with no
transponder on?

Cheers

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> http://www.examiner.com/a-1314730~Feds_Call_for_Alerts_on_All_Air_Gliders.ht ml
>
> Feds Call for Alerts on All Air Gliders
> Apr 1, 2008 5:28 PM (25 days ago) By SCOTT SONNER, AP
....
> NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker recommended in a March 31 letter to the
> board that the glider exemption be eliminated in part because of an
> NTSB investigation into a collision between a glider and a private jet
> about 40 miles southeast of Reno in August 2006.
>
> In that case, the glider pilot - who parachuted to safety - had a
> transponder on his aircraft but had turned it off to conserve battery
> power.

Heh - it had a transponder. Now if the FAA is willing to foot the bill
for developing a battery that can actually last... they may as well
write regulations dictating that all aircraft have engines.

> "As evidenced by this accident, aircraft that are not using or not
> equipped with transponders and are operating in areas transited by air
> carrier traffic represent a collision hazard," Rosenker wrote in the
> letter first made public on Tuesday.

Idiots are in charge that don't understand the concept of anecdotal
evidence. It isn't hard to locate mid-air collisions wherein both
aircraft HAD operating transponders. And there are cases where ATC
and/or flight following was an active element:

154 fatalities in this famous one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061002X01435&key=1

5 fatalities, transponders irrelevant:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030625X00951&key=2

1 fatality, and an unreliable transponder anyway:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X09562&key=1

2 fatalities, and inadequate ATC advisory:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07187&key=1

1 fatality, transponders in use and pilot who died had requested flight
following and been assigned a transponder code, for all the good it did:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X01819&key=2

> Of the 60 near mid-air collisions from 1988 to 2007

Boggle - how to lie wih statistics. Search the NTSB database for
"glider" and "midair" back to 1962 and you'll get only 7 results. Only 3
of the 7 resulted in fatalities (but 9 fatalities in all).

Inverted or misguided safety priorities.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 9:32*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
> >> That's a constructive suggestion. *
>
> >> How large must such a radar reflector be? *
>
> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
> >in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
> >no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
> >occupies *a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
> >equally in all directions.
> >...
>
> Interesting. *Thanks for the information. *
>
> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>

Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
incorporated into (say) the wing tips?

Cheers

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote in
>:

>On Apr 28, 9:32*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>>
>> >> That's a constructive suggestion. *
>>
>> >> How large must such a radar reflector be? *
>>
>> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
>> >in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
>> >no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
>> >occupies *a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
>> >equally in all directions.
>> >...
>>
>> Interesting. *Thanks for the information. *
>>
>> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>>
>
>Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
>could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
>cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
>incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>
>Cheers

That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)

[Big John]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>> > electrical systems too?
>>
>> Almost certainly
>>
>>
>>
>> > How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>> > this issue?
>>
>> Not at all. Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>> and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>>
>> Right-of-way rules have two uses:
>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to avoid
>> each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations, and are
>> inclined to follow them).
>>
>> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
>> methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
>> > if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>>
>> No more than they do now.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>>
>> It always has been a myth.
>>
>
>No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
>below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
>probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
>zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
>terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
>directions and altitudes.
>
>The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
>older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
>avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
>proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
>necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
***********************************

Does ATC use skin paint any more????

Big John

[Roy Smith]

Big John > wrote:

> However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
> >necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.

Not really. More like a corner reflector. Take three mutually
perpendicular reflecting planes and you get an interesting and useful
property -- an incoming beam from any direction gets reflected three times
and ends up going out in exactly the same direction it came from. Exactly
what you want to give an artificially large radar profile.

See here for an example:

http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sd152.html

In any case, primary radar (even with the help of a passive, if efficient,
reflector on the target) only gives you bearing and range. To get
altitude, you need Mode C.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:17:44 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote in
>:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>> However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
>> >necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
>Not really. More like a corner reflector. Take three mutually
>perpendicular reflecting planes and you get an interesting and useful
>property -- an incoming beam from any direction gets reflected three times
>and ends up going out in exactly the same direction it came from. Exactly
>what you want to give an artificially large radar profile.
>
>See here for an example:
>
>http://www.landfallnavigation.com/sd152.html
>

Hey. That looks like just the ticket, and the price is right. Of
course, once it's STCed ...

Here's the corner reflector definition in Federal Standard 1037C:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-009/_1298.htm
Photo: http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/images/coriverc.gif
That doesn't look nearly as useful as the example you provided.

>In any case, primary radar (even with the help of a passive, if efficient,
>reflector on the target) only gives you bearing and range. To get
>altitude, you need Mode C.

I've had ATC call traffic "altitude unknown" often. I don't see the
lack of altitude information as a real limitation, but then I'm
neither a controller nor engineer.

So while the NTSB in Safety Recommendation A-08-10 through -13 dated
March 31, 2008 is recommending removing the glider transponder
exemption:

The Board notes that, because of the limitations of the
see-and-avoid concept, transponder-initiated collision alerts
(either from ATC or TCAS) provide both VFR and IFR aircraft with a
higher degree of safety in an environment where highspeed closure
rates are possible. Therefore, the Safety Board further concludes
that transponders are critical to alerting pilots and controllers
to the presence of nearby traffic, so that collisions can be
avoided, and that gliders should not be exempt from the
transponder requirements. This is especially important at higher
altitudes, where flight crews may rely more on their TCAS,
expecting that other aircraft, including light aircraft, are in
contact with ATC and/or are transponder-equipped.

Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should remove
the glider exemptions from the FARs that pertain to transponder
requirements and use.

It would seem that the language the NTSB used leaves room for
equipping gliders with a simple passive corner reflector installed
within the composite or other non-metallic skin of the glider, thus
overcoming the lack of electrical system, and providing ATC with a
useable target for potential traffic conflicts.

[Eric Greenwell]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>>> ...
>>> Interesting. Thanks for the information.
>>>
>>> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>>>
>> Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
>> could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
>> cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
>> incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
> the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)

Locally, approach radar has no trouble finding our transponderless
gliders (when we call them), tracking them, and warning/diverting other
traffic. We generally do this within 15-20 miles of our towered
airports. It works well for us, given the altitudes we fly at.

I don't know that a corner reflector would improve on the situation, or
if they would detect the gliders without the radio call. While the pilot
can't turn it off, it may be the controller doesn't notice it without
the radio call, and may not be able to see it because of other clutter,
or perhaps the display filter settings.

It's worth contacting ATC in your area to see if they are willing and
able to do the same for you. It's not practical everywhere, but it's
cheap and easy if it is.

A problem the reflector can not solve is TCAS will still not detect the
glider. This might be deal-breaker for the FAA/NTSB people.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[BT]

Larry.. DO you fly gliders?
From these statements it would appear that you do not.
Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.

NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a change
to many CFRs.
Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B. Why would
I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.
Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
be done.

My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent) and
are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just sitting
there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.

Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.
They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in use,
or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and make
up their own mind about the landing runway.

What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.

And local ATC can see my non-transponder equipped glider just fine, when I
am high enough for radar coverage.
It's called raw radar skin paint. And yes, I am looking at the requirements
(Not Govt' requirement but electical and space in the aircraft requirements)
and feasibility for installing transponders in our gliders.

B

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:01:31 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
>>> electrical systems too?
>>
>> Almost certainly
>>>
>
> That's the way I saw it also.
>
> Here are a few pertinent questions:
>
> What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
> glider?
>
> If implemented, will the requirement for an electrical system kill
> low-cost glider training operations?
>
> Would the CAP glider training operations, which typically provide
> winch launch and pattern work, be impacted?
>
> What are the full implications of installing an electrical system in a
> Champ or Cub? Isn't their performance so marginal already, that they
> will become impractical due to increased empty weight and drag, and
> power reduction with the addition of an alternator, battery,
> communications radio, transponder, antennas, wiring, switches, etc?
>
> Would the work have to be done by an A&P and approved by the FAA for
> each aircraft/glider modified?
>
> Will aircraft/glider useful load be affected?
>
>>
>>> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
>>> this issue?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>
> So you don't believe there is any possibility that Part 121 or 135
> operator advocate organizations have been lobbying the government to
> increase the conspicuity of gliders or to enable their TCAS systems to
> warn operators of glider proximity?
>
> What is the possibility of NextGen ATC accommodating non-metallic
> aircraft without electrical systems? Without transponders? Without
> radio communications?
>
>>
>>Any glider pilots who depends on powered aircraft to see them
>>and to automatically get out of their way has a death wish.
>>
>
> It's difficult to deny that. But it doesn't address the issue of
> liability.
>
>>
>>Right-of-way rules have two uses:
>> 1) Provides a framework of preplanned manuvers for aircraft to use to
>> avoid
>>each other (but only if they both see each other, know the regulations,
>>and are
>>inclined to follow them).
>>
>
> Actually, that is true if only one pilot makes visual contact too.
>
>>
>> And now the big one: (2) It provides lawers and bureaucrats with a
>>methodology for assigning blame after an accident.
>>
>
> So Right-of-way regulations provide a basis for aggrieved parties to
> seek compensation from regulation violators, and assign responsibility
> too.
>
>>>
>>> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
>>> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>>
>> No more than they do now.
>>
>
> I would find ATC's responsibility for separating NORDO gliders that
> paint no primary target to be nonexistent presently. If this proposal
> is enacted, the situation will change.
>
>>>
>>> Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>>
>> It always has been a myth.
>>
>
> At the risk of tangential drift, isn't the BST currently employed by
> the FAA to separate high-speed military aircraft on VFR low-level
> Military Training Routs from civil flights? In light of the mythical
> status of the BST, shouldn't that flaw in the NAS be corrected also?
>
>>
>>Vaughn
>>
>
> Thank you for your insightful comments.
>

[BT]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 27, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>
> I think the FAR can be justifiably modified to only exempt airplanes
> originally manufactured with no electrical system, but all airplanes
> manufactured since 2008 (or whenever) operating in airspace where a
> transponder is required should be equipped with one.
>

But not all aircraft are required to have a transponder in all categories of
airspace...
Sure.. all AIRPLANES with electrical generating systems should have a
transponder, but not all AIRCRAFT have electrical generating systems. Even
ones built today, sort of a Catch-22.

B

[Eric Greenwell]

BT wrote:

> Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
> be done.

That's a great price! Where do you get these? What brand? The ones I
know about (Becker, Microair) are $1900 plus $200 for the encoder.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[sisu1a]

On Apr 27, 3:45 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 28, 9:32 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> >> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>
> >> >> That's a constructive suggestion.
>
> >> >> How large must such a radar reflector be?
>
> >> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
> >> >in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
> >> >no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
> >> >occupies a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
> >> >equally in all directions.
> >> >...
>
> >> Interesting. Thanks for the information.
>
> >> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>
> >Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
> >could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
> >cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
> >incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>
> >Cheers
>
> That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
> the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)

Unfortunately too simple. The problem is NOT ATC's equipment having
trouble painting a glider. The problem is the threshold of sensitivity
on their radars is set far too high to display us since they
intentionally filter out things as slow as a glider, particularly if
it's thermalling. We are simply filtered out as clutter (according to
the rep Reno sent to address PASCO last winter). That said, I'm sure
we don't all read the same on radar, but gliders are not the stealth
aircraft they are being made out to be. I believe cockpit alone has a
rather large signature, unless of course you paid the extra $1,000,000
for the one molecule thick layer of electrically deposited gold on
your canopy. There's more to a stealth aircraft then it being made of
fiberglass, or even carbon...

Paul

[Al Borowski]

> I came across this technology on the web when I was researching the recent
> ADS-B nprm. Looks like there's already some portable/handheld ADS-B type
> equipment in use in Europe for the soaring community:
>
> http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=26
>
> http://www.rf-developments.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=33
>
> All based on some SSA technology called FLARM:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLARM
>
> Maybe this will be a low cost answer to spamcans being forced into the ADS-B
> regs.

Hrm. These devices are all based on something called FLARM. FLARM
works by detecting each aircraft's location via GPS and broadcasting
it on a license-free radio frequency. There are 2 things about FLARM
that make me uncomfortable:

First, the information needed for third party manufactures to build
FLARM compatible devices is not public. This means that Joe Bloggs
Avionics Corp can't build their own FLARM device at a cheaper price.
Instead you must buy from the FLARM company or another company that
has licensed FLARM. Imagine if transponders were like this! There
would be a government sactioned monopoly. I'm sure you can guess if
the price of transponders would be higher or lower then at present.

Secondly, as far as I know, all FLARMs are time-bombed. They stop
working after a certain date. After that time, you have to upgrade the
software to make it work again. Sure, this doesn't cost anything, but
what if the FLARM company goes bankrupt? If you can't get software
updates, your FLARM stops working!!

Disclaimer: I've had some personal involvement with the FLARM that's
left a bitter taste in my mouth. Back at university, I tried to make a
FLARM compatible device as a project. FLARM marketing material said
that the information to make third party devices compatible with FLARM
would be provided on request, in the interest of safety - after all,
the more aircraft fitted with anticollision systems the better. When I
actually asked for this information I was told no, it was not public
information after all. Sorry we changed our minds - you now have to
buy a license for all the electronics. I think it's wrong to promote
your product by saying it will be an open standard, then changing your
mind when it starts to get adopted.

I'm not saying that FLARM is a bad product; far from it. I've flown in
FLARM equipped gliders and feelt much safer doing so. But please keep
these points in mind.

Cheers

Al

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 28, 6:24*pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:45 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > > wrote in
> > >:
>
> > >On Apr 28, 9:32 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> > >> > wrote in
> > >> >:
>
> > >> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> > >> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section..
>
> > >> >> That's a constructive suggestion.
>
> > >> >> How large must such a radar reflector be?
>
> > >> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3 inches
> > >> >in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside that. I have
> > >> >no idea how effective it is compared to a classic reflector which
> > >> >occupies *a cube about 1 foot across and retroreflects the radar
> > >> >equally in all directions.
> > >> >...
>
> > >> Interesting. *Thanks for the information.
>
> > >> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>
> > >Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
> > >could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
> > >cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
> > >incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>
> > >Cheers
>
> > That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
> > the issue. *Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. *:-)
>
> Unfortunately too simple. The problem is NOT ATC's equipment having
> trouble painting a glider. The problem is the threshold of sensitivity
> on their radars is set far too high to display us since they
> intentionally filter out things as slow as a glider, particularly if
> it's thermalling. We are simply filtered out as clutter (according to
> the rep Reno sent to address PASCO last winter). That said, I'm sure
> we don't all read the same on radar, but gliders are not the stealth
> aircraft they are being made out to be. I believe cockpit alone has a
> rather large signature, unless of course you paid the extra $1,000,000
> for the one molecule thick layer of electrically deposited gold on
> your canopy. There's more to a stealth aircraft then it being made of
> fiberglass, or even carbon...
>

Only perfectly flat surfaces are more stealthy because they bounce the
radar away from the source, whereas a convex surface always bounces
some energy back (falling rapidly with distance). A concave surface
starts to act as a retroreflector. I am sure that the nicely curved
body of a high performance glass glider has a much lower radar cross
section than any aluminium GA aircraft. It's not stealth but
fiberglass is so transparent it's used for radomes.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

sisu1a > wrote in
:

> On Apr 27, 3:45 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 28, 9:32 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> <68afa9fb-b4d2-4620-91e6-f0a85a75d...
@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>> >> >> >sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross
>> >> >> >section.
>>
>> >> >> That's a constructive suggestion.
>>
>> >> >> How large must such a radar reflector be?
>>
>> >> >It's a retroreflector, I have one in the form of a tube about 3
>> >> >inches in diameter and 2 feet long. The corner cubes are inside
>> >> >that. I have no idea how effective it is compared to a classic
>> >> >reflector which occupies a cube about 1 foot across and
>> >> >retroreflects the radar equally in all directions.
>> >> >...
>>
>> >> Interesting. Thanks for the information.
>>
>> >> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>>
>> >Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
>> >could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
>> >cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
>> >incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>>
>> >Cheers
>>
>> That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
>> the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)
>
> Unfortunately too simple. The problem is NOT ATC's equipment having
> trouble painting a glider. The problem is the threshold of sensitivity
> on their radars is set far too high to display us since they
> intentionally filter out things as slow as a glider, particularly if
> it's thermalling. We are simply filtered out as clutter (according to
> the rep Reno sent to address PASCO last winter). That said, I'm sure
> we don't all read the same on radar, but gliders are not the stealth
> aircraft they are being made out to be. I believe cockpit alone has a
> rather large signature, unless of course you paid the extra $1,000,000
> for the one molecule thick layer of electrically deposited gold on
> your canopy. There's more to a stealth aircraft then it being made of
> fiberglass, or even carbon.



You fly Sisu?


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Apr 27, 1:15*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
>
> >Just to clarify, The FAA does not classify a glider as an airplane so
> >this has nothing to do with the exemption. The press release is poorly worded.
>
>
> I believe this is the NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter dated March
> 31, 2008:
>
Gee, thanks. I was aware of this. I was trying to point out that this
has nothing to do with vintage planes without an engine driven
electrical system. You dont normaly see a champ flying wave at 16000
MSL. The manor in which sailplanes are flown is what makes this an
issue.

[Peter Dohm]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote:
>
>
> Does ATC use skin paint any more????
>
> Big John

Yes. The story I heard was that they were about to do away with it--but
some sort of incident occured in the third quarter of '01 and they changed
their minds...

Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:10:42 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>On Apr 27, 1:15*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
>>
>> >Just to clarify, The FAA does not classify a glider as an airplane so
>> >this has nothing to do with the exemption. The press release is poorly worded.
>>
>>
>> I believe this is the NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter dated March
>> 31, 2008:
>>
>Gee, thanks. I was aware of this. I was trying to point out that this
>has nothing to do with vintage planes without an engine driven
>electrical system. You dont normaly see a champ flying wave at 16000
>MSL. The manor in which sailplanes are flown is what makes this an
>issue.

While the NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter dated March 31, 2008 seems
to be a request for the FAA to remove the glider exemption from the
regulation(s) regarding mandatory transponder operation, it does also
mention aircraft manufactured/certified without electrical systems.

One wonders why the NTSB would only "close the door" half way on this
issue.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:20:30 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote in <igcRj.6716$r12.4153@trndny03>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>>> ...
>>>> Interesting. Thanks for the information.
>>>>
>>>> How do you think it might affect a sailplane's L/D?
>>>>
>>> Well, if the sailplane skin is transparent to radar a big reflector
>>> could be mounted inside, they don't weigh much. On the other hand a
>>> cylinder type reflector could be made quite aerodynamic and even
>>> incorporated into (say) the wing tips?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
>> the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)
>
>Locally, approach radar has no trouble finding our transponderless
>gliders (when we call them), tracking them, and warning/diverting other
>traffic. We generally do this within 15-20 miles of our towered
>airports. It works well for us, given the altitudes we fly at.
>

Thank you for this information.

Would the gliders you mention be of glass-fiber, aluminum, or
carbon-fiber composite construction? I would expect a glass ship with
few metal parts to be rather transparent to radar.

>I don't know that a corner reflector would improve on the situation, or
>if they would detect the gliders without the radio call. While the pilot
>can't turn it off, it may be the controller doesn't notice it without
>the radio call, and may not be able to see it because of other clutter,
>or perhaps the display filter settings.

I would guess the controller would need to adjust his scope from it's
usual setting to see primary targets, so a radio call may be
necessary. While a corner reflector would doubtless increase the
radar energy returned to the radar antenna and provide a brighter
primary target, I doubt that would be sufficient to cause the glider
so equipped to become visible on ATC's scopes without reconfiguring
them to display slow-moving primary targets.

>
>It's worth contacting ATC in your area to see if they are willing and
>able to do the same for you. It's not practical everywhere, but it's
>cheap and easy if it is.
>

I'm not so much concerned about my personal situation as I am about
the FAA rescinding the glider exemption from FARs that require
transponder use. If we can give the FAA some guidance on this issue,
the outcome will likely be more acceptable, than if the draft their
NPRM without pilot input, IMO.

>A problem the reflector can not solve is TCAS will still not detect the
>glider. This might be deal-breaker for the FAA/NTSB people.

I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
installed and signed off.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:27:54 -0700, "BT" > wrote
in >:

>Larry.. DO you fly gliders?

Not in several years.

>From these statements it would appear that you do not.
>Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
>power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
>Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.
>

None of the gliders I have flown have had electrical systems, small or
otherwise.

>NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a change
>to many CFRs.

True, but I'm thinking that it is in our best interest to provide some
guidance to the FAA before they draft their NPRM; hopefully proactive
will be better than reactive.

>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B.

Are you able to provide any specific information about that
technology?

>Why would I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.

Of course, it's worse than that. There would need to be antennas,
cabling, batteries, switches, circuit breakers, ammeter, ... It
wouldn't be very cost effective to equip gliders used for training
with all that, not to mention the resulting degraded flight
performance and maintenance requirements.

>Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It can
>be done.

Can you provide more specific information about them?

>
>My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
>that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent) and
>are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
>aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just sitting
>there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.
>

I'm not sure if there is a solution to that issue short of having a
control tower at _all_ fields. Have you got any ideas?

>Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
>airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.

While not very smart, it's not a violation of regulations, is it?

>They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in use,
>or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and make
>up their own mind about the landing runway.

I find the level of competence, diligence, and responsibility of some
airmen to be disappointing, and it's not just the "hobby" pilots. One
wonders how they manage to pass their biennial flight reviews.

>
>What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.
>

Ha ha!

Hey, it's not me raising the transponder issue; it's the NTSB. :)
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2008/a08_10_13.pdf

>And local ATC can see my non-transponder equipped glider just fine, when I
>am high enough for radar coverage.

How much metal and/or carbon-fiber does your glider contain?

>It's called raw radar skin paint.

In you experience, doesn't the controller normally need to be asked to
set that mode on his scope? Wouldn't your glider be invisible to ATC
under normal circumstances without you calling and informing the
controller you are there?

>And yes, I am looking at the requirements
>(Not Govt' requirement but electical and space in the aircraft requirements)
>and feasibility for installing transponders in our gliders.
>

If the NTSB gets their way, there will be many more glider owners
doing the same.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps it would be possible to modify ATC procedures or display
> software to overcome that issue. That would certainly be preferable
> to requiring electrical systems be installed in all gliders.

Not to ATC.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:24:48 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a
> wrote in
>:

[radar corner reflector suggestion snipped]

>>
>> That sounds like a very simple, inexpensive and effective solution to
>> the issue. Best of all, the pilot can't turn it off. :-)
>
>Unfortunately too simple. The problem is NOT ATC's equipment having
>trouble painting a glider. The problem is the threshold of sensitivity
>on their radars is set far too high to display us since they
>intentionally filter out things as slow as a glider, particularly if
>it's thermalling. We are simply filtered out as clutter (according to
>the rep Reno sent to address PASCO last winter).

Perhaps it would be possible to modify ATC procedures or display
software to overcome that issue. That would certainly be preferable
to requiring electrical systems be installed in all gliders.

>That said, I'm sure we don't all read the same on radar, but gliders
>are not the stealth aircraft they are being made out to be. I believe
>cockpit alone has a rather large signature,

What is there in the glider cockpit of a typical glass ship that
reflects radar energy? I suppose the instruments are metal, and some
of the control linkage and gear are metallic, but I would expect the
corner reflector to provide a much stronger return.

>unless of course you paid the extra $1,000,000 for the one molecule
>thick layer of electrically deposited gold on your canopy. There's
>more to a stealth aircraft then it being made of fiberglass, or even
>carbon...
>
>Paul

I would think carbon-fiber composite would be nearly as reflective to
radar energy as aluminum.

The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is
the high power consumption required by transponders. Here's a typical
glider transponder: http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm
It seems to draw 175W to 250W. That's not insignificant, and way more
than the comm radio consumes. Then there's the weight and antenna
that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment,
installation, and maintenance.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 28, 3:18*am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> *I am sure that the nicely curved
> body of a high performance glass glider has a much lower radar cross
> section than any aluminium GA aircraft. It's not stealth but
> fiberglass is so transparent it's used for radomes.


The RCS of glass gliders is quite large because of all the metal push
rods. Tests with local radar (Luke Air Force base) showed no
significant improvement in primary target return if a corner reflector
was added.

I have been easily tracked by approach control in my ASW19 and had
them vector traffic round me as I climbed. They do have to want to
see you though and, as others have pointed out, it's likely that the
radar display will be set to filter out a slow moving primary target.


Andy

[Tauno Voipio]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> radar energy as aluminum.
>
> The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is
> the high power consumption required by transponders. Here's a typical
> glider transponder: http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm
> It seems to draw 175W to 250W. That's not insignificant, and way more
> than the comm radio consumes. Then there's the weight and antenna
> that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment,
> installation, and maintenance.


You may have made a small mistake: 175 to 250 Watts
is the pulse output power. In the same document, the
current consumption is about a half ampere at 14 V,
which is 7 Watts.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), avionics engineer)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 29, 5:51*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> I would guess the controller would need to adjust his scope from it's
> usual setting to see primary targets, so a radio call may be
> necessary. *While a corner reflector would doubtless increase the
> radar energy returned to the radar antenna and provide a brighter
> primary target, I doubt that would be sufficient to cause the glider
> so equipped to become visible on ATC's scopes without reconfiguring
> them to display slow-moving primary targets.
>

How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
usual clutter.

Cheers

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:20:20 GMT, Tauno Voipio
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> radar energy as aluminum.
>>
>> The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is
>> the high power consumption required by transponders. Here's a typical
>> glider transponder: http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm
>> It seems to draw 175W to 250W. That's not insignificant, and way more
>> than the comm radio consumes. Then there's the weight and antenna
>> that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment,
>> installation, and maintenance.
>
>
>You may have made a small mistake: 175 to 250 Watts
>is the pulse output power. In the same document, the
>current consumption is about a half ampere at 14 V,
>which is 7 Watts.

You are correct. Here's another with even less power consumption:
http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Avionics/MicroairTransponder/microairtransponder.html
Microair T2000 Transponder, $1,825
Wiring harness for T2000, $149
Ameri-King AK-350 Blind Encoder, $179

Power input: .25 amps @ 27.50 volts;
.4 amps @ 13.75 volts TX,
80 mA RX

I wonder if those power consumption figures include the heater in the
encoder.


Perhaps it's a good idea to require equipping all gliders with
transponders after all. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps
> wrote in
>:

>On Apr 29, 5:51*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>
>> I would guess the controller would need to adjust his scope from it's
>> usual setting to see primary targets, so a radio call may be
>> necessary. *While a corner reflector would doubtless increase the
>> radar energy returned to the radar antenna and provide a brighter
>> primary target, I doubt that would be sufficient to cause the glider
>> so equipped to become visible on ATC's scopes without reconfiguring
>> them to display slow-moving primary targets.
>>
>
>How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
>would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
>usual clutter.
>

I have no idea, but just assumed it was a tunable parameter.

Perhaps one of the ATC folks among the readership of these newsgroups
may offer some input on that subject.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 27, 7:26*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
> electrical systems too? *


Actually its more than gliders. They're talking about requiring that
we carry a transponder on our boats too. There has also been talk from
the TSA about having boat owners licensed and binding their license to
their craft to ensure that the person is operating the boat he owns/
operates.

-Robert

[BT]

Thanx Eric.. it's been a while since I checked.. I remember 13 but that may
have been the crappy Becker Radio.
Had two.. both went back for repairs.. and I know at least one Becker
Transponder had to go back too.
BT

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:RIdRj.174$1m3.73@trndny02...
> BT wrote:
>
>> Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It
>> can be done.
>
> That's a great price! Where do you get these? What brand? The ones I know
> about (Becker, Microair) are $1900 plus $200 for the encoder.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"BT" > wrote:

>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B. Why would
>I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.

I suspect that you mean "ADS-B Out"

Reference: http://tinyurl.com/33k9m2

You will see responses from me. I am adamantly against it.

Ron Lee

[BT]

Larry.. it's been a few years since I've been on the ATC side of the radar..
but "we" had to monitor "primary" returns when working low altitude sectors,
Below FL180. I've listened in on the local TRACON ATC frequency when flying
in the "airline approach area" and yes, they are issuing "traffic, altitude
unknown, could be a glider", and I did not call them first to give them a
heads up. This has been in Grob 103s and LS-4, fiberglass with metal pushrod
controls.

Becker Transponders are very popular with glider pilots, I missed on the
price.. it's closer to $1900 plus antenna and install.
http://www.beckerusa.com/products/detail/index3.php?search=557



B


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:27:54 -0700, "BT" > wrote
> in >:
>
>>Larry.. DO you fly gliders?
>
> Not in several years.
>
>>From these statements it would appear that you do not.
>>Gliders may or may not have electrical systems, they do not "generate
>>power", but stored battery power of a limited life span.
>>Gliders are small, batteries are small, everything needs to be small.
>>
>
> None of the gliders I have flown have had electrical systems, small or
> otherwise.
>
>>NTSB "recommends", FAA cannot mandate without a comment period and a
>>change
>>to many CFRs.
>
> True, but I'm thinking that it is in our best interest to provide some
> guidance to the FAA before they draft their NPRM; hopefully proactive
> will be better than reactive.
>
>>Technology is coming for the small transponder, along with ATS-B.
>
> Are you able to provide any specific information about that
> technology?
>
>>Why would I put a 50# $15K ATS-B system in a $15K glider.
>
> Of course, it's worse than that. There would need to be antennas,
> cabling, batteries, switches, circuit breakers, ammeter, ... It
> wouldn't be very cost effective to equip gliders used for training
> with all that, not to mention the resulting degraded flight
> performance and maintenance requirements.
>
>>Small transponders now are about $1300 plus antenna and installation. It
>>can
>>be done.
>
> Can you provide more specific information about them?
>
>>
>>My issue is not with TCAS equipped aircraft, but with smaller GA aircraft
>>that do not have TCAS, do not have a Garmin 430 with TIS (or equivalent)
>>and
>>are not talking to ATC. It does no good to have a transponder, when the
>>aircraft causing the traffic conflict is not talking to anyone. Just
>>sitting
>>there FDH and not even paying attention in the traffic pattern.
>>
>
> I'm not sure if there is a solution to that issue short of having a
> control tower at _all_ fields. Have you got any ideas?
>
>>Last Saturday we had at least 4 transient aircraft attempt to land at the
>>airport with 15 to 20 knot tail winds, and against the flow of traffic.
>
> While not very smart, it's not a violation of regulations, is it?
>
>>They could not even listen up to the radio to figure out the runway in
>>use,
>>or even look at a wind sock or a huge flag and see the 15knt winds and
>>make
>>up their own mind about the landing runway.
>
> I find the level of competence, diligence, and responsibility of some
> airmen to be disappointing, and it's not just the "hobby" pilots. One
> wonders how they manage to pass their biennial flight reviews.
>
>>
>>What makes you think a transponder in a glider would make any difference.
>>
>

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:51?am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> I would guess the controller would need to adjust his scope from it's
>> usual setting to see primary targets, so a radio call may be
>> necessary. ?While a corner reflector would doubtless increase the
>> radar energy returned to the radar antenna and provide a brighter
>> primary target, I doubt that would be sufficient to cause the glider
>> so equipped to become visible on ATC's scopes without reconfiguring
>> them to display slow-moving primary targets.
>
> How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> usual clutter.

A cruising glider is likely to be faster than that. However, gliders
climbing in a thermal are making tight little circles, and I believe this
will look like a stationary target to the radar. Worse, a glider climbing
in wave really will *be* stationary, as the glider will try not to move by
matching airspeed to wind speed at altitude. I have heard stories of
unintelligent GPS units deciding the airplane was parked and shutting
themselves off in this situation.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I wonder if those power consumption figures include the heater in the
> encoder.
>
>
> Perhaps it's a good idea to require equipping all gliders with
> transponders after all. :-(

Keep in mind that the recommendation is not to require equipping all
gliders with transponders. It's to remove the exemption given to gliders
and give them the same rules as powered aircraft with electrical systems,
to require them to have a transponder for flight into a mode C veil or
above 10,000ft. In some places this would do almost nothing; where I fly
we are outside the veil (barely) and hit 10,000ft maybe a couple of times
a year. In other places it would severely limit activity for gliders
without transponders to the extent that it would essentially be required.

The power requirements are a secondary concern, the primary concern is
cost. Power requirements of course influence cost. There are gliders with
transponders out there, so obviously it can be done. But there are a lot
of gliders for which the cost of a transponder installation would be a
sizable fraction of the total value of the aircraft, and this change could
put their owners in a very bad spot.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Alan[_6_]]

In article >
Larry Dighera > quotes the NTSB report:


> Before the
>collision, the Hawker had been descending toward RNO on a stable
>northwest heading for several miles, and the glider was in a 30 [degree],
>left-banked, spiraling climb.

. . .

>Because of the lack of radar data for the glider's flight, it was not
>possible to determine at which points in each flight each aircraft may
>have been in the other's available field of view. Although Federal
>Aviation Regulations (FARs) require all pilots to maintain vigilance
>to see and avoid other aircraft (this includes pilots of flights
>operated under IFR, when visibility permits), a number of factors that
>can diminish the effectiveness of the see-and-avoid principle were
>evident in this accident. For example, the high-speed closure rate of
>the Hawker as it approached the glider would have given the glider
>pilot only limited time to see and avoid the jet. Likewise, the
>closure rate would have limited the time that the Hawker crew had to
>detect the glider, and the slim design of the glider would have made
>it difficult for the Hawker crew to see it.


Am I the only one to question this? If the glider was in a 30 degree
left banked spiraling climb, we should be able to predict where it was
for several minutes prior to the collision --- it was spiraling in the
thermal, moving upwards. His nominal thermal airspeed can be looked up
for the model of glider; the actual value, and the rate of climb can
be determined from the glider pilot.

Since the jet was flying in a straight line (rate of descent, if any
can be found from radar data), it should be fairly easy to figure where
the glider was in the field of view of the jet pilots. As the glider
was probably moving about 50 kt, and the jet was reported at 300 kt, the
glider would have been within no more than about 9 degrees from directly
ahead of the jet.

The glider didn't jump in front of the jet.

I guess the NTSB did not want to do this calculation.

Alan

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "BT" > writes:

>But not all aircraft are required to have a transponder in all categories of
>airspace...
>Sure.. all AIRPLANES with electrical generating systems should have a
>transponder, but not all AIRCRAFT have electrical generating systems. Even
>ones built today, sort of a Catch-22.

Quite true. Aside from things like Balloons, even things like hang
gliders and paragliders fly. Some quick searching tells that hang
gliders get up above 10,000 feet as well. Where does one mount the
transponder and battery on a hang glider or paraglider?


Alan

[Eric Greenwell]

WingFlaps wrote:

> Only perfectly flat surfaces are more stealthy because they bounce the
> radar away from the source, whereas a convex surface always bounces
> some energy back (falling rapidly with distance). A concave surface
> starts to act as a retroreflector. I am sure that the nicely curved
> body of a high performance glass glider has a much lower radar cross
> section than any aluminium GA aircraft. It's not stealth but
> fiberglass is so transparent it's used for radomes.

But, gliders have been made with carbon fiber for decades now, and even
fiberglass gliders have metal parts. Do pilots in your area find ATC
(typically "approach" ATC) unable to detect ANY of your gliders?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Locally, approach radar has no trouble finding our transponderless
>> gliders (when we call them), tracking them, and warning/diverting other
>> traffic. We generally do this within 15-20 miles of our towered
>> airports. It works well for us, given the altitudes we fly at.
>>
>
> Thank you for this information.
>
> Would the gliders you mention be of glass-fiber, aluminum, or
> carbon-fiber composite construction? I would expect a glass ship with
> few metal parts to be rather transparent to radar.

In my local area, some glider are fiberglass with some carbon, like a
spar (like a PIK 20 E), or are entirely carbon. All are motorgliders. At
Ephrata, WA, where most of the state's gliders fly, the construction
varies from fiberglass through carbon. Only a few of the gliders are
motorgliders. I expect materials to make a difference, but it's hard to
tell from the anecdotal information. The biggest difference seems to be
making that radio call to ATC.

>> It's worth contacting ATC in your area to see if they are willing and
>> able to do the same for you. It's not practical everywhere, but it's
>> cheap and easy if it is.
>>
>
> I'm not so much concerned about my personal situation as I am about
> the FAA rescinding the glider exemption from FARs that require
> transponder use. If we can give the FAA some guidance on this issue,
> the outcome will likely be more acceptable, than if the draft their
> NPRM without pilot input, IMO.

My thought is pilots, ATC, and FAA might discover contacting ATC
achieves enough of what everyone wants, that a complete revocation of
our exemption might be avoided. To make the case, we need to try the ATC
system to determine this.

>
>> A problem the reflector can not solve is TCAS will still not detect the
>> glider. This might be deal-breaker for the FAA/NTSB people.
>
> I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
> transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
> lack an electrical system either.

True. I don't know where that is going, but maybe if a jet runs into a
Champ, they'll get their exemption removed, too. Or maybe they are next
to lose it, regardless.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Mike Isaksen]

"Peter Dohm" wrote ...
>
> "Big John" wrote ...
>> Does ATC use skin paint any more????
>>
> Yes. The story I heard was that they were about to do away
> with it--but some sort of incident occured in the third quarter
> of '01 and they changed their minds...

Yeah,... I can just see the FAA/DOT b-crats spending a few years trying to
schmooze the congress criters on how much money can be saved if they get rid
of those pesky & troublesome primary radar sites, then 911 happens the whole
ADS-B sales job goes back to the drawing board.

[Eric Greenwell]

Alan wrote:
Likewise, the
>> closure rate would have limited the time that the Hawker crew had to
>> detect the glider, and the slim design of the glider would have made
>> it difficult for the Hawker crew to see it.
>
>
> Am I the only one to question this? If the glider was in a 30 degree
> left banked spiraling climb, we should be able to predict where it was
> for several minutes prior to the collision --- it was spiraling in the
> thermal, moving upwards. His nominal thermal airspeed can be looked up
> for the model of glider; the actual value, and the rate of climb can
> be determined from the glider pilot.
>
> Since the jet was flying in a straight line (rate of descent, if any
> can be found from radar data), it should be fairly easy to figure where
> the glider was in the field of view of the jet pilots. As the glider
> was probably moving about 50 kt, and the jet was reported at 300 kt, the
> glider would have been within no more than about 9 degrees from directly
> ahead of the jet.
>
> The glider didn't jump in front of the jet.
>
> I guess the NTSB did not want to do this calculation.

Lets cut the NTSB (and the Hawker pilots) some slack: sometimes *I*
can't spot a glider that is only a mile or two away, even though we're
talking to each other, and sometimes, he doesn't see me either! And we
aren't closing at 300 knots, maybe not closing at all.

It's not just gliders, but the small GA aircraft, too. I'm much more
aware of this since I got a Zaon MRX, because I sometimes get an alert
but still don't find the airplane.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> You are correct. Here's another with even less power consumption:
> http://www.sportflyingshop.com/Avionics/MicroairTransponder/microairtransponder.html
> Microair T2000 Transponder, $1,825
> Wiring harness for T2000, $149
> Ameri-King AK-350 Blind Encoder, $179
>
> Power input: .25 amps @ 27.50 volts;
> .4 amps @ 13.75 volts TX,
> 80 mA RX
>
> I wonder if those power consumption figures include the heater in the
> encoder.

No, that figure doesn't include the encoder. The heater can be 200-300
ma when it's fully on, but the typical unit won't be fully on unless
it's "really" cold outside. In my glider, that seems to be lower than
~10 deg F - winter wave flying for me. There are encoders with less low
temperature draw, but they tend to be expensive.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Roy Smith]

In article <dSuRj.7182$r12.6971@trndny03>,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> But, gliders have been made with carbon fiber for decades now, and even
> fiberglass gliders have metal parts.

Is carbon more reflective than glass?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:48:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote in >:

>Where does one mount the transponder and battery on a hang glider
>or paraglider?


Not to worry. The EAA is workin' on it: :-)

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-04-26_symposium.asp

EAA Asks FAA to Authorize Electric Motors in Ultralights and
Light-Sport Aircraft

Announcement at Electric Aircraft Symposium draws applause
April 26, 2008 — In an effort to gain attention and support for
electric aircraft innovation and to help advance efforts to bring
affordable electric aircraft to recreational aviators, EAA at today’s
CAFE Foundation 2008 Electric Aircraft Symposium announced a
significant advocacy measure. As the final speaker on the Symposium
agenda, EAA Lifetime Member Craig Willan wrapped up the one-day event
in San Francisco announcing that EAA this week filed a request to the
FAA for regulatory exemptions that would allow the use of electric
motors in ultralight and light-sport aircraft.

“The announcement drew enthusiastic applause,” Willan reported shortly
after the event’s conclusion. “After a full day’s in-depth exploration
of the cutting-edge work being done, the group was already energized
by the promising developments in the science and engineering arenas.
When I announced at the end of the day EAA’s action in the regulatory
arena aimed at allowing the application of this technology, it was
like an additional shot of adrenaline,” he said.

“I also informed the group that this is only a first step. I’m
participating on an EAA task force charged with further facilitating
progress in the use of electric energy to power aircraft,” he said.
“The EAA community is committed to this direction. More announcements
are coming.”

EAA’s petition to the FAA specifically proposes specifications for
battery-pa...

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:56:50 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote in <CfvRj.2859$5X.2017@trndny08>:

>the whole ADS-B sales job goes back to the drawing board.

Right. ADS-B shifts the responsibility for tracking the position of
aircraft from ATC to the aircraft, unless I've overlooked something.
That seems like a fundamental flaw; only the outlaws are invisible.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:34:56 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote in
>:

>
>Is carbon more reflective than glass?

Carbon, being conductive, would be expected to be considerably
reflective of radar energy, IMO.

[Cats]

On Apr 28, 7:44*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
<snip>
> The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is
> the high power consumption required by transponders. *Here's a typical
> glider transponder:http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm
> It seems to draw 175W to 250W. *That's not insignificant, and way more
> than the comm radio consumes. *Then there's the weight and antenna
> that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment,
> installation, and maintenance.

You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is
squawking.

As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve
performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be
inside the glider so won't increase drag.

But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a
cheap thing.

[Peter Dohm]

"Cats" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 7:44 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
<snip>
> The issue in equipping gliders with transponders, the way I see it, is
> the high power consumption required by transponders. Here's a typical
> glider transponder:http://www.airplanegear.com/becker.htm
> It seems to draw 175W to 250W. That's not insignificant, and way more
> than the comm radio consumes. Then there's the weight and antenna
> that reduce performance, not to mention the cost of the equipment,
> installation, and maintenance.

You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is
squawking.

As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve
performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be
inside the glider so won't increase drag.

But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a
cheap thing.

-------------new message begins-------------

I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially
when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably.

Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:41:54 +0000 (UTC),
(Alan) wrote in >:

>In article >
> Larry Dighera > quotes the NTSB report:
>
>
>> Before the
>>collision, the Hawker had been descending toward RNO on a stable
>>northwest heading for several miles, and the glider was in a 30 [degree],
>>left-banked, spiraling climb.
>
> . . .
>
>>Because of the lack of radar data for the glider's flight, it was not
>>possible to determine at which points in each flight each aircraft may
>>have been in the other's available field of view. Although Federal
>>Aviation Regulations (FARs) require all pilots to maintain vigilance
>>to see and avoid other aircraft (this includes pilots of flights
>>operated under IFR, when visibility permits), a number of factors that
>>can diminish the effectiveness of the see-and-avoid principle were
>>evident in this accident. For example, the high-speed closure rate of
>>the Hawker as it approached the glider would have given the glider
>>pilot only limited time to see and avoid the jet. Likewise, the
>>closure rate would have limited the time that the Hawker crew had to
>>detect the glider, and the slim design of the glider would have made
>>it difficult for the Hawker crew to see it.
>
>
> Am I the only one to question this? If the glider was in a 30 degree
>left banked spiraling climb, we should be able to predict where it was
>for several minutes prior to the collision --- it was spiraling in the
>thermal, moving upwards. His nominal thermal airspeed can be looked up
>for the model of glider; the actual value, and the rate of climb can
>be determined from the glider pilot.
>
> Since the jet was flying in a straight line (rate of descent, if any
>can be found from radar data), it should be fairly easy to figure where
>the glider was in the field of view of the jet pilots. As the glider
>was probably moving about 50 kt, and the jet was reported at 300 kt, the
>glider would have been within no more than about 9 degrees from directly
>ahead of the jet.
>
> The glider didn't jump in front of the jet.
>
> I guess the NTSB did not want to do this calculation.
>
> Alan

Perhaps the accident investigators were incapable of doing it.

At any rate, even a high aspect ratio glider with minimal frontal area
presents a rather significant silhouette when wing-up in a bank if it
is seen against contrasting background (unless it is head-on). Perhaps
gliders should be fitted with rotating beacon lights in addition to
transponders. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:44:00 GMT, Eric Greenwell
> wrote in <A3vRj.3311$WS1.1091@trndny04>:

>The biggest difference seems to be making that radio call to ATC.

I presume the radio call to ATC is a position report, so that the
controller knows where to look for your primary target.

That seems like a natural programming application for computer
detection of glider targets, which may do away with the necessity of a
radio call to ATC (especially in the event of NORDO aircraft). If
such a glider primary-target detection algorithm could be made to work
reliably, it wouldn't cost too much to implement it, way less than the
cost of equipping gliders with transponders, IMO.

Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and
without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference.
That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances
involved and the metallic content.

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> > Is the big-sky-theory a myth?
>>
>> It always has been a myth.
>>
>
>No it is not a myth. If you evenly spread the number of GA aircraft
>below 12,000 ft across the U.S all traveling at random directions, the
>probability of collision will be extremely low enough to be considered
>zero. The problem is that the big sky theory does not apply near
>terminal airspace where the airplanes are not traveling in random
>directions and altitudes.

Or near radio navaids or scenic views.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 4:29*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and
> without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference.
> That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances
> involved and the metallic content. *

A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about
7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider
then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this
simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine
that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say <1m^2) and
electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd
estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section
so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but
I'd like to see so real measurements.

Cheers

[kirk.stant]

On Apr 29, 2:53*pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:29*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and
> > without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference.
> > That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances
> > involved and the metallic content. *
>
> A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about
> 7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider
> then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this
> simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine
> that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say <1m^2) and
> electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd
> estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section
> so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but
> I'd like to see so real measurements.
>
> Cheers

Once again - This has already been tested. ATC radars do not have
any trouble detecting gliders of any kind as primary targets IF THEY
ARE NOT FILTERED OUT. When reflectors were added, no difference was
noticed by ATC. And from personal experience in G-102s, LS-4s, and
LS-6s, I have never had any problem being picked up by a terminal
radar when I told them where I was.

Transponders are great, and if you can afford one and fly where it is
useful, get one. Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern
glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical
systems and many have transponders. Many are now getting MRX TPAS to
detect transponders - actually a better solution in most of the places
gliders fly (particularly back East).

The NTSB recommendation is just that - a recommendation.

Sheesh, do some research!

Kirk
LS6b 66
TPAS, GPS, radio, moving map, ELT equipped; powered by 2 independent
battery systems.

[sisu1a]

On Apr 29, 12:53 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:29 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Someone posted a report of a study on radar reflection with and
> > without a corner reflector that indicated there was little difference.
> > That doesn't seem intuitive, but I suppose it depends on the distances
> > involved and the metallic content.
>
> A good 1' boating radar reflector has a radar cross section of about
> 7m^2. If you compare this to the _visual_ cross section of a glider
> then in some directions it is larger and in others smaller. But this
> simple comparison ignores the transparency of fiber glass. I imagine
> that a major reflector in the glider is the pilot (say <1m^2) and
> electronics and about half a bucket of some bolts and hinges? I'd
> estimate that this all would add up to no more 3m^2 of cross section
> so adding just 1 radar reflector could triple the cross section -but
> I'd like to see so real measurements.
>
> Cheers

Although the actual x-section of the given reflecting materials may
only add up to that amount as a static total, how it is arranged makes
a huge difference just the as much as how although a composite glider
is only a couple of bolts of glass cloth/and or some carbon/kevlar and
a couple of buckets of resin and some hardware...but depending on how
it's arranged makes the difference of whether it's an ASG-29 or if its
an PW-2 Gappa (OK, not specifically, but I think the point is
made...).

Likewise, how these reflective materials are individually shaped as
well as how they are arranged makes all the difference as to what the
radar sees. Some would vary greatly from type to type, as some have
vastly different materials/structures. Your cockpit rails and other
angular objects in the cockpit (as well as the humy too I suppose)
form lots of the signature, but having nuts/bolts/pushrods extending
out 20'-50' off either side matters too. The F-117 illustrates this
point nicely. BTW, even "stealth" aircraft are still technically
visible to radar, it is just that their signature is usually reduced
to the size of a pigeon or less making them much easier to mask.

It is my understanding though, (as already mentioned) it is NOT out
lack of a readable signature as a primary target (I'm not saying we
have huge signatures, just that they are already readable for the most
part, some better than others...), but our slow/erratic flying gets us
weeded out of the picture the same way it filters out buildings and
mountains. Again, this is from MY recollection from the Reno ATC rep
while addressing this very subject last winter. Any PASCO folks that
also attended care to elaborate?, did you film it Kemp? Whether ATC
can theoretically come up with a better target tracking/filtration
system should really be the question, but I think we ALL know that
would be an answer we should not hold our breath for!

Paul

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "kirk.stant"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern
>glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical
>systems and many have transponders.

As a percentage of the entire sailplane fleet, how many would you
estimate are "modern glass gliders?"

[BT]

You can't put the antenna on the inside of a carbon fiber fuselage, well,
you could, but it would not work.
Not all gliders have excess usable weight available to carry water.

BT
_____________

You need to find the overall consumption, not what is used when it is
squawking.

As to weight - since we frequently put water in gliders to improve
performance, I can't see a problem there, and the antenna will be
inside the glider so won't increase drag.

But you are right that buying and installing a transponder isn't a
cheap thing.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 8:40*am, sisu1a > wrote:

>
> It is my understanding though, (as already mentioned) it is NOT out
> lack of a readable signature as a primary target (I'm not saying we
> have huge signatures, just that they are already readable for the most
> part, some better than others...), but our slow/erratic flying gets us
> weeded out of the picture the same way it filters out buildings and
> mountains. Again, this is from MY recollection from the Reno ATC rep
> while addressing this very subject last winter.

As far as I know, fixed returns from stationary targets are removed by
simple sweep differencing and thresholding. It may be that target
doppler shift is used to selectr/reject moving targets so the issue
would then be the threshold for that rejection. I read that an
interceptor radar had a threshold of about 20 knots for this purpose
but I can't find any statement (via google) as to what threshold ATC
usually uses. Measurement of small doppler shift is aided by a strong
signal, so weak slow targets would be doubly rejected so to speak. I
doubt they see flocks of birds, but then they mostly fly at less than
30 knots I think (even the african swallow :-) so the could be set to
30knots without degrading system performance (maybe?).

I suspect that if the "powers that be" want to see gliders for traffic
avoidance and gliders don't want transponders it would be in their
best interest to make sure they can be easily seen by passive means.
Beaurocrats like being given options that are win win for both pasties
If offering to mount a really cheap reflector inside the fuse could
assure detectability, it could be a way to go forward (assuming
gliders want $ savings from avoiding the purchase and regular testing
of transponders)...

Just trying to help, I'm not a regular glider pilot.
Cheers

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially
> when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably.

Why solar cells? A 7 amp hour lead acid gel cell can be had for about 20 bucks,
and would run a solid state transponder for a whole flight.
--
Jim in NC

[Alan[_6_]]

In article "Morgans" > writes:
>"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
>> I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially
>> when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably.
>
>Why solar cells? A 7 amp hour lead acid gel cell can be had for about 20 bucks,
>and would run a solid state transponder for a whole flight.

One doesn't want to run the lead acid battery down past about 1/2 its capacity
to get a reasonable service life from it, so that limits you to 3.5 AH.

Given that they are also probably running some of:

o A com radio.
o An elecronic variometer.
o A gps.
o A flight logger.

and that they are wanting these to run for flights of 5 - 8 hours or more,
it is fairly clear that the 7 AH battery cannot do it.

I would expect they have already trimmed the list of electronic items
in order to get their flight time from the battery, so a transponder would
need another battery, or giving up some of the other equipment.


More thoughts on the basic issue of protecting IFR aircraft from gliders.
How about designating that area as having fairly low speed limits all the
way up to 18,000 feet (where wave windows would take over for separation),
only in this case note that if the aircraft is unable to fly that slowly,
they have to go around the airspace.


Alan

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 29, 5:35*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "kirk.stant"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern
> >glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical
> >systems and many have transponders.
>
> As a percentage of the entire sailplane fleet, how many would you
> estimate are "modern glass gliders?" *

Been to a glider field lately? Or a contest, or fun meet?

At my club, we have 5 older generation, non-glass gliders. The rest
of our fleet, club and private, totals perhaps 12 glass ships - all
with electrical systems (and one with a transponder). So that is a
pretty high percentage.

I would estimate that by flight hour, the majority of glider flying in
the US (and the rest of the world) is done in "modern glass gliders".

So if your idea of a typical American glider is a beat-up 2-33, you
might be surprised. While you will still find a lot of them around,
it's amazing how little they fly (with some obvious exceptions, of
course!).

Kirk

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Alan > wrote:
> In article "Morgans" > writes:
>>"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>
>>> I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially
>>> when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably.
>>
>>Why solar cells? A 7 amp hour lead acid gel cell can be had for about 20 bucks,
>>and would run a solid state transponder for a whole flight.
>
> One doesn't want to run the lead acid battery down past about 1/2 its capacity
> to get a reasonable service life from it, so that limits you to 3.5 AH.

What kind of unreasonable service life do you get if you use the full
capacity, and at $20 each do you care if you use it up faster? Unless you
can count the number of cycles on your fingers that may be the simplest
and most cost effective way to go, although of course I may be overlooking
something important.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Shawn[_5_]]

wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:35 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "kirk.stant"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera obviously hasn't been around a modern
>>> glass glider recently or he would understand that most have electrical
>>> systems and many have transponders.
>> As a percentage of the entire sailplane fleet, how many would you
>> estimate are "modern glass gliders?"
>
> Been to a glider field lately? Or a contest, or fun meet?
>
> At my club, we have 5 older generation, non-glass gliders. The rest
> of our fleet, club and private, totals perhaps 12 glass ships - all
> with electrical systems (and one with a transponder). So that is a
> pretty high percentage.
>
> I would estimate that by flight hour, the majority of glider flying in
> the US (and the rest of the world) is done in "modern glass gliders".
>
> So if your idea of a typical American glider is a beat-up 2-33, you
> might be surprised. While you will still find a lot of them around,
> it's amazing how little they fly (with some obvious exceptions, of
> course!).

Similar in Boulder. 60% of our club fleet is glass (OK it's only three
out of five, but still...) Mile High Gliding is about 50:50, then there
are the 30 or so private ship. I believe there are one or two HPs, the
rest are composite.

Shawn

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Michael Ash" > wrote

> What kind of unreasonable service life do you get if you use the full
> capacity, and at $20 each do you care if you use it up faster? Unless you
> can count the number of cycles on your fingers that may be the simplest
> and most cost effective way to go, although of course I may be overlooking
> something important.

I have found that using 60% or perhaps 70% does not seem to limit their life
noticeably. What does kill them is to charge them too fast, or most
importantly, leaving them sitting around in a discharged state. Doing that one
time could be the end of them.

The better question than asking how much more quickly a higher discharge kills
them for the price, is to ask why not buy an extra one, or two.

Larger gell cells are also available, but I'm not sure where the economics of
buying more small ones versus buying a single larger one come into play.
--
Jim in NC

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Michael Ash > writes:
>In rec.aviation.soaring Alan > wrote:

>> One doesn't want to run the lead acid battery down past about 1/2 its capacity
>> to get a reasonable service life from it, so that limits you to 3.5 AH.
>
>What kind of unreasonable service life do you get if you use the full
>capacity, and at $20 each do you care if you use it up faster? Unless you
>can count the number of cycles on your fingers that may be the simplest
>and most cost effective way to go, although of course I may be overlooking
>something important.

It depends on the details of the battery. Lead acid batteries come in a
lot of sub-types, with varying ability to handle deeper discharges. The
better ones cost more.

Other factors include the output voltage under load at discharge -- a
lead acid battery is rated to 10.2 to 10.5 volts for a "12 volt" battery
at discharge. Unfortunately, most 12 volt radios and devices are designed
for a charging electrical system, with a voltage of about 14 volts. When
the battery is down to 75% of the expected voltage for the radio, not all
of them work. I have had aircraft radios that would not transmit below
about 11.5 volts, at which point the battery would be still above 50% charged.

Lead acid batteries are normally rated for capacity at a 20 hour rate of
discharge. A 7 AH battery would deliver 7000 / 20 = 350 mA for 20 hours.
Faster discharge rates result in less capacity being available (look up
Peukerts exponent for more details). Discharging faster than that, reduces
the amp-hour capacity of the battery.

Lead acid batteries have less capacity when cold. One guide suggests that
for every 10 degrees centigrade below room temperature, you should add 10%
to the battery capacity needed. High altitude flight tends to get up into
cold places.


Alan

[Tony Verhulst]

> At my club, we have 5 older generation, non-glass gliders. The rest
> of our fleet, club and private, totals perhaps 12 glass ships - all
> with electrical systems (and one with a transponder).


IMHO, in FAA speak, an aircraft having only battery power does not have
an electrical system.

FAR 91.215:

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which
was not originally certificated with an *engine-driven* electrical
system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system
installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace
within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1
of this part provided such operations are conducted—.......

Tony V.

[Eric Greenwell]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.soaring Alan > wrote:
>> In article "Morgans" > writes:
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>>
>>>> I 'm confident that the installation is the biggest part of it--especially
>>>> when you include enough solar panels to power it all reliably.
>>> Why solar cells? A 7 amp hour lead acid gel cell can be had for about 20 bucks,
>>> and would run a solid state transponder for a whole flight.
>> One doesn't want to run the lead acid battery down past about 1/2 its capacity
>> to get a reasonable service life from it, so that limits you to 3.5 AH.
>
> What kind of unreasonable service life do you get if you use the full
> capacity, and at $20 each do you care if you use it up faster? Unless you
> can count the number of cycles on your fingers that may be the simplest
> and most cost effective way to go, although of course I may be overlooking
> something important.

According to the Powersonic Technical Manual, you can get about 200
cycles using 100% discharges, and about 500 cycles using 50% discharges,
before the battery is down to 60% of it's capacity. If you need 80% of
the battery capacity, the cycle numbers are about 150 and 400,
respectively. 150 cycles is 3 years or more for most pilots - not bad
for $20.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Apr 30, 7:41*pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> > At my club, we have 5 older generation, non-glass gliders. *The rest
> > of our fleet, club and private, totals perhaps 12 glass ships - all
> > with electrical systems (and one with a transponder).
>
> IMHO, in FAA speak, an aircraft having only battery power does not have
> an electrical system.
>
> FAR 91.215:

snipped

> Tony V.


No argument - but that is the regulatory definition. My comment on
gliders with electrical systems addressed a possible misconception
about how many gliders have a battery- powered electrical system
capable of running radios, nav gear, and even transponders.

Apples and Oranges, so to speak...

Cheers,

Kirk

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If this is implemented, will it affect powered aircraft without
> electrical systems too?
>

It shouldn't.


>
> How much does the gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft affect
> this issue?
>

It doesn't affect it at all.


>
> Is ATC going to take legal and financial responsibility for separation
> if gliders are mandated to be so equipped and operated?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
>
> The spirit of the original transponder exemption was to allow for
> older airplanes that were manufactured before the days electrical
> avionics became commonplace. So I can see the justification for this
> proposal. However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be
> necessary. A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
> sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>

And might present a small target or none at all on an ATC display using
ARSR. That assumes the ARSR has primary radar to begin with, some are just
beacon interrogators.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>>However, a full blown mode C transponder may not be necessary.
>>A radar reflector like they use on weather balloon ought be
>>sufficient. It is just a piece of foil with a large cross section.
>>
>
> That's a constructive suggestion.
>
> How large must such a radar reflector be?
>
> Will it activate TCAS?
>

No.


>
> Does ATC normally enable the display of primary targets?
>

Outside of Class A airspace, yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
> transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
> lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
> this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
> Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
> electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
> installed and signed off.
>

So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>
> How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> usual clutter.
>

There are two windmill farms about twenty miles northeast of Green Bay that
break through the Moving Target Indicator. The windmills are stationary, of
course, but the moving rotors are detected.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
>
> Once again - This has already been tested. ATC radars do not have
> any trouble detecting gliders of any kind as primary targets IF THEY
> ARE NOT FILTERED OUT. When reflectors were added, no difference was
> noticed by ATC. And from personal experience in G-102s, LS-4s, and
> LS-6s, I have never had any problem being picked up by a terminal
> radar when I told them where I was.
>

Not all ATC radars are the same. ASR displays primary targets rather well,
ARSR not very well at all. Some enroute radar sites are just beacon
interrogators, no primary radar at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> While the NTSB Safety Recommendation Letter dated March 31, 2008 seems
> to be a request for the FAA to remove the glider exemption from the
> regulation(s) regarding mandatory transponder operation, it does also
> mention aircraft manufactured/certified without electrical systems.
>
> One wonders why the NTSB would only "close the door" half way on this
> issue.
>

Perhaps it is because the NTSB recognizes that aircraft
manufactured/certified without electrical systems are not operated in the
same manner as gliders and are thus not an issue.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> At any rate, even a high aspect ratio glider with minimal frontal area
> presents a rather significant silhouette when wing-up in a bank if it
> is seen against contrasting background (unless it is head-on). Perhaps
> gliders should be fitted with rotating beacon lights in addition to
> transponders. :-)
>

If seen against a contrasting background, that is key.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does ATC use skin paint any more????
>

If you mean does ATC still have primary radar, the answer is yes, in most
areas. Using it and having it are not quite the same, however.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Yes. The story I heard was that they were about to do away with it--but
> some sort of incident occured in the third quarter of '01 and they changed
> their minds...
>

As I recall, primary radar was going to be eliminated at enroute facilities
but not terminal facilities. The more recent ARSR installations didn't have
primary radar at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right. ADS-B shifts the responsibility for tracking the position of
> aircraft from ATC to the aircraft, unless I've overlooked something.
> That seems like a fundamental flaw; only the outlaws are invisible.
>

That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
positions known.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if you see a glider in you path while piloting a powered aircraft,
> but its pilot doesn't see you, you don't give it the right of way?
>

So if you see a powered aircraft in you path while piloting a glider, but
its pilot doesn't see you, do you expect it to yield the right-of-way?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:39:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Right. ADS-B shifts the responsibility for tracking the position of
>> aircraft from ATC to the aircraft, unless I've overlooked something.
>> That seems like a fundamental flaw; only the outlaws are invisible.
>>
>
>That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
>positions known.
>

That's not the way the TSA sees it. Read some of the comments on the
docket web site, and you see that they see ADS-B as primarily a means
of surveillance.

What sort of gum-shoe relies solely upon the survailee to continually
announce his location? Not a realistic one who wants to locate those
who prefer their position remain cloaked.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
>>positions known.
>>
>
> That's not the way the TSA sees it.
>

How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
>> transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
>> lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
>> this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
>> Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
>> electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
>> installed and signed off.
>
> So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.

This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
else is even being discussed.

Note that requiring all gliders flying above 10,000MSL to be
transponder-equipped would still result in a large amount of either
expense or restrictions on flying for a large proportion of the
glider-flying population.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> That's not a problem to ATC, the users of ATC services want to make their
>>> positions known.
>>>
>> That's not the way the TSA sees it.
>>
>
> How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.
>
>

It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.
>
> It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.
>

How so?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:09:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>> How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.
>>
>> It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.
>>
>
>How so?
>

If TSA and FAA are both under DOT, DOT will dictate policy I would
guess.

[5Z]

On May 1, 9:41 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> > So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.
>
> This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
> else is even being discussed.

A 3,000' tow at my club will go just a hair over 10K.

-Tom

[Bill Daniels]

"5Z" > wrote in message
...
> On May 1, 9:41 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> > So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.
>>
>> This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
>> else is even being discussed.
>
> A 3,000' tow at my club will go just a hair over 10K.
>
> -Tom

Yep, we do little soaring below 10,000' - big rocks tend to get in the way.

Bill D

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If TSA and FAA are both under DOT, DOT will dictate policy I would guess.
>

TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>>> How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.
>> It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.
>>
>
> How so?
>
>


Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:09:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>> How TSA sees things is also not a problem to ATC.
>>> It is if the TSA has more stroke than the FAA and the TSA does.
>>>
>> How so?
>>
>
> If TSA and FAA are both under DOT, DOT will dictate policy I would
> guess.

TSA is DHS not DOT.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If TSA and FAA are both under DOT, DOT will dictate policy I would guess.
>>
>
> TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>
>

No the POTUS does and he probably listens to DHS more than DOT.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
>

I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>
> No the POTUS does and he probably listens to DHS more than DOT.
>

What ATC policies have been dictated by the POTUS? Why would the POTUS rely
on DHS for ATC policy over DOT? Would he rely on DOT over DHS on security
matters?

[Sarah Anderson[_2_]]

Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?

A reading of
> Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
> that pertain to transponder requirements and use.

would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs


Sarah


Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.soaring Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I agree. But rescinding the glider exemption from FARs requiring
>>> transponder use won't address that issue with powered aircraft that
>>> lack an electrical system either. It looks like the FAA's response to
>>> this NTSB recommendation is destined to be a compromise at best.
>>> Hopefully it won't result in all gliders and aircraft without
>>> electrical systems being grounded until they have transponders
>>> installed and signed off.
>> So just remove the exemption at and above 10,000 MSL.
>
> This is precisely what is being proposed. I don't understand why anything
> else is even being discussed.

> Note that requiring all gliders flying above 10,000MSL to be
> transponder-equipped would still result in a large amount of either
> expense or restrictions on flying for a large proportion of the
> glider-flying population.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:11:39 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>DHS does not dictate ATC policy.

Not directly, however it appears there is cooperation among the
various departments, including DHS and DOT's FAA through the Next
Generation Air Transportation system Joint Planning and Development
Office as well as DOT's Research and Innovative Technology
Administration. So while DHS not dictate ATC policy, it would seem
that DHS is able to influence the direction of ATC's future, if not
current, path:


http://www.jpdo.gov/newsArticle.asp?ID=5
On September 9, 2004, the Joint Planning and Development Office
and the Air Traffic Control Association co-sponsored a symposium
in Washington, DC on Network Enabled Operations (NEO) for
Aviation. Attended by more than a hundred representatives from the
private and public sector, it featured a diverse group of speakers
who delved into how NEO relates to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, its potential benefits, and the changes and
barriers that must be overcome if transformation is to be
achieved. The following is a synopsis of the symposium's sessions.
...

[NB: The prime advocate of user-fees is the corporation with the
satellite-based ATC product, below:]

Neil Planzer, Boeing's Vice President, Strategy, Advanced ATM
Systems, looked at the "hidden challenges and obstructions" to
transformation. He said that the root problem is that there is "no
political imperative today for us to change." Moreover, he
contended that previous technological failures and budget
constraints could further contribute to hindering transformation.
Mr. Planzer also argued that the hub and spoke system "embeds in
the [ATC] system a capacity problem." He concluded that if
transformation is to succeed, a strong argument has to be made as
to its security value to the Departments of Defense (DOD) and
Homeland Security (DHS).

Derek Smith, Information Technology Program Manager for the
Transportation Security Administration in DHS saw five issues
influencing the transformation towards NEO: (1) socio-political,
such as the inability to motivate the workforce to change from the
legacy systems to NEO; (2) missions may not be able to accommodate
future needs and process controls; (3) full start-up funding; (4)
security needs and; (5) the socialization of each issue.
...



http://www.jpdo.gov/whoswho.asp
Next Generation Air Transportation system Joint Planning and
Development Office




http://www.jpdo.gov/library/In_Brief_2006.pdf
How Nextgen and the JPDO Came To Be
In 2003, Congress passed Vision 100—Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act which chartered the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO) to begin work on the planning and
implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
What Congress envisioned, and what has developed since, is an
unprecedented initiative. It involves not only the Federal
Aviation Administration, but also the Departments of
Transportation, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, NASA, and
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
But it is not solely a government program. To ensure...



http://www.jpdo.gov/library/Sturgell_Web.pdf
JOINT STATEMENT OF ROBERT STURGELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND CHARLES LEADER, DIRECTOR, JOINT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION ON THE
FUTURE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION
May 9, 2007
Good morning Chairman Costello, Congressman ...

SESAR, like NextGen, has a lot of work remaining to refine
assumptions and better define the system. However, there is an
important difference in scope between SESAR and NextGen. While
SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management,
NextGen takes what’s called a “curb-to-curb” approach, and
includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport
operations, security and passenger management, and DoD and DHS NAS
requirements. ...




http://www.rita.dot.gov/publications/research_activities_of_the_department_of_transport ation_a_report_to_congress/html/section_04.html
U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Innovative Technology Administration

DOT's operating administrations coordinate with other agencies in
specific areas of mutual interest. Among the agencies with which
the administrations collaborate are the following:

Department of Commerce : Within the Department of Commerce (DOC),
a number of agencies conduct research relevant to transportation.
Current DOT efforts with DOC include: (1) FHWA work with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on
high-performance concrete; (2) FHWA - National Weather Service
research on road weather observations; (3) an FRA - NIST effort on
the fire safety of passenger rail car materials; and (4) the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO), through which the FAA,
DOC, NASA, DOD, and DHS are defining the future air transportation
system.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.soaring Sarah Anderson > wrote:
>
> Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?
>
> A reading of
> > Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
> > that pertain to transponder requirements and use.
>
> would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs

Yes, the idea would be to make the requirements the same as for powered
aircraft. This would no doubt have a large impact on a lot of people,
particularly our Western bretheren who think nothing of cracking 10,000ft,
and people such as yourself who operate close to class B. But it's not the
same as a blanket requirement as has been implied.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > writes:
>
>Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?
>
>A reading of
> > Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
> > that pertain to transponder requirements and use.
>
>would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs

In a sailplane? Wow. Doesn't give much vertical space. How much room do you have from base
of class B to the surface? You must have to find lift pretty often...

Alan

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:11:39 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>
> Not directly, however it appears there is cooperation among the
> various departments, including DHS and DOT's FAA through the Next
> Generation Air Transportation system Joint Planning and Development
> Office as well as DOT's Research and Innovative Technology
> Administration. So while DHS not dictate ATC policy, it would seem
> that DHS is able to influence the direction of ATC's future, if not
> current, path:
>

It seems you've again copied and pasted without reading the material or
understanding it.

[Sarah Anderson[_2_]]

The issue is the veil. The shelves are high enough (6000/7000 msl) to get in and out staying
clear of class B.


Alan wrote:
> In article > writes:
>> Don't they also intend to require a mode C transponder inside class B "veils"?
>>
>> A reading of
>>> Remove the glider exemptions from the Federal Aviation Regulations
>>> that pertain to transponder requirements and use.
>> would seem to imply that. There are a lot of people ( like me ) operating underneath class Bs
>
> In a sailplane? Wow. Doesn't give much vertical space. How much room do you have from base
> of class B to the surface? You must have to find lift pretty often...
>
> Alan

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
>>
>
> I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.
>
>
>
>

If national security, a DHS issue, overlaps ATC, a DOT issue, don't
count on DOT winning the argument.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>>> TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>> No the POTUS does and he probably listens to DHS more than DOT.
>>
>
> What ATC policies have been dictated by the POTUS? Why would the POTUS rely
> on DHS for ATC policy over DOT? Would he rely on DOT over DHS on security
> matters?
>
>

And policy promulgated by DOT, DHS, DOD, is dictated by the POTUS. In
most cases it is actually dictated by people he selects to handle those
departments but the final authority rests on the desk of the POTUS.

As for your other two questions think overlap.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
> >>
> >
> > I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> If national security, a DHS issue, overlaps ATC, a DOT issue, don't
> count on DOT winning the argument.

Yes one must concider the potential horror of fleets of all fiberglass
gliders with no transponders coming across the Atlantic filled with
terrorists and nuclear bombs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
>>>>
>>> I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>> If national security, a DHS issue, overlaps ATC, a DOT issue, don't
>> count on DOT winning the argument.
>
> Yes one must concider the potential horror of fleets of all fiberglass
> gliders with no transponders coming across the Atlantic filled with
> terrorists and nuclear bombs.
>
>

I didn't imply that there was such a threat. This as most conversations
with Mr. McNicoll is an offshoot of the original conversation. Because
he made some comment that while not really wrong isn't how the real
world works.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> >> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> >>> m...
> >>>> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
> >>>>
> >>> I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >> If national security, a DHS issue, overlaps ATC, a DOT issue, don't
> >> count on DOT winning the argument.
> >
> > Yes one must concider the potential horror of fleets of all fiberglass
> > gliders with no transponders coming across the Atlantic filled with
> > terrorists and nuclear bombs.
> >
> >

> I didn't imply that there was such a threat. This as most conversations
> with Mr. McNicoll is an offshoot of the original conversation. Because
> he made some comment that while not really wrong isn't how the real
> world works.

Didn't say you did.

My point is that in a sane world (big leap of faith there) DHS wouldn't
have any interest in gliders as one would be hard pressed to come up
with a scenario involving national security and a glider.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WingFlaps]

On May 3, 4:15*am, wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> > >> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > >>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >>>> Are you asking about stoke or if it is a problem to ATC?
>
> > >>> I'm asking how TSA's view of things is a problem to ATC.
>
> > >> If national security, a DHS issue, overlaps ATC, a DOT issue, don't
> > >> count on DOT winning the argument.
>
> > > Yes one must concider the potential horror of fleets of all fiberglass
> > > gliders with no transponders coming across the Atlantic filled with
> > > terrorists and nuclear bombs.
>
> > I didn't imply that there was such a threat. This as most conversations
> > with Mr. McNicoll is an offshoot of the original conversation. Because
> > he made some comment that while not really wrong isn't how the real
> > world works.
>
> Didn't say you did.
>
> My point is that in a sane world (big leap of faith there) DHS wouldn't
> have any interest in gliders as one would be hard pressed to come up
> with a scenario involving national security and a glider.
>

Not hard at all.
It flies, it can carry a bomb and explosives. It is cheap and readily
available.

Cheers

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>>> TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>>> No the POTUS does and he probably listens to DHS more than DOT.
>>>
>>
>> What ATC policies have been dictated by the POTUS? Why would the POTUS
>> rely on DHS for ATC policy over DOT? Would he rely on DOT over DHS on
>> security matters?
>
> And policy promulgated by DOT, DHS, DOD, is dictated by the POTUS.

What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?


>
> In most cases it is actually dictated by people he selects to handle those
> departments but the final authority rests on the desk of the POTUS.
>

What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT, DHS, or
DOD?


>
> As for your other two questions think overlap.
>

Why can't you just answer the questions?

[Eric Greenwell]

Alan wrote:

> Other factors include the output voltage under load at discharge -- a
> lead acid battery is rated to 10.2 to 10.5 volts for a "12 volt" battery
> at discharge.

Powersonic uses 10.5 volts for 5 to 20 hour discharge rates.

> Unfortunately, most 12 volt radios and devices are designed
> for a charging electrical system, with a voltage of about 14 volts.

Most panel mounted radios (definitely for Dittel and Becker radios)
bought new in the last 20 years (and even some older ones) meet the
current requirements to function properly to 10.5 volts, and at even
lower voltages, but with reduced power output. "Very old" radios likely
will have problems at 10.5 volts. I have no idea what the percentage of
"old" and "new" are.

> When
> the battery is down to 75% of the expected voltage for the radio, not all
> of them work. I have had aircraft radios that would not transmit below
> about 11.5 volts, at which point the battery would be still above 50% charged.

Powersonic shows it's batteries have only 25% capacity left at 11.5
volts. I haven't checked other brands, but believe they are the same for
the batteries we use in our gliders.
>
> Lead acid batteries are normally rated for capacity at a 20 hour rate of
> discharge. A 7 AH battery would deliver 7000 / 20 = 350 mA for 20 hours.
> Faster discharge rates result in less capacity being available (look up
> Peukerts exponent for more details). Discharging faster than that, reduces
> the amp-hour capacity of the battery.

At a current drain of 700 ma (10 hour rate) that you might have with
transponder, radio, etc, Powersonic shows a capacity of 90% of the 20
hour rate. That's not a show-stopper, but worth taking into account.

> Lead acid batteries have less capacity when cold. One guide suggests that
> for every 10 degrees centigrade below room temperature, you should add 10%
> to the battery capacity needed. High altitude flight tends to get up into
> cold places.

This corresponds with the Powersonic chart, so at -10C (15F), you have a
30% loss of capacity. For winter flying, and spring or fall flying in
places where you can climb to, say, 10,000' agl, it's an important
factor. Especially so, when you know your encoder will likely be using
it's heater, adding 50-150 milliamps to your current drain.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote >
> This corresponds with the Powersonic chart, so at -10C (15F), you have a 30%
> loss of capacity. For winter flying, and spring or fall flying in places where
> you can climb to, say, 10,000' agl, it's an important factor. Especially so,
> when you know your encoder will likely be using it's heater, adding 50-150
> milliamps to your current drain.

Put a insulated cover around the battery, and the heat of discharge will keep
it warm and the capacity up, unless it is seriously freakin' cold.
--
Jim in NC

[Eric Greenwell]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote >
>> This corresponds with the Powersonic chart, so at -10C (15F), you have
>> a 30% loss of capacity. For winter flying, and spring or fall flying
>> in places where you can climb to, say, 10,000' agl, it's an important
>> factor. Especially so, when you know your encoder will likely be using
>> it's heater, adding 50-150 milliamps to your current drain.
>
> Put a insulated cover around the battery, and the heat of discharge will
> keep it warm and the capacity up, unless it is seriously freakin' cold.

Insulating it will keep if from cooling off as quickly, but I'm
skeptical about the amount of self-heating. Do you know how much it is,
or where I can find a reference to it that applies to the batteries we
us? Insulating my battery is difficult due to it's location, so I'd like
to know it's worth the effort before attempting it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
WingFlaps > wrote:

> How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> usual clutter.

Don't forget that it's the radial velocity that is detected by skin paint.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[WingFlaps]

On May 4, 8:37*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *WingFlaps > wrote:
> > How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> > would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> > usual clutter.
>
> Don't forget that it's the radial velocity that is detected by skin paint.
>


Aha, someone who understands Dopplewho knows!. data from the secondary
sites can fix that problem.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting WingFlaps > wrote:
> On May 4, 8:37?am, Bob Noel >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > ?WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> > > would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> > > usual clutter.
> >
> > Don't forget that it's the radial velocity that is detected by skin paint.
> >


> Aha, someone who understands Dopplewho knows!. data from the secondary
> sites can fix that problem.

The FAA radars are what they are.

You can arm wave forever about what they could be, but that isn't going
to change them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 23:15:03 GMT, wrote in
>:

>
>
>The FAA radars are what they are.
>
>You can arm wave forever about what they could be, but that isn't going
>to change them.

But decommissioning them, as part of the ADS-B implementation, will
make them moot.

[Jennifer Allen[_3_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 03 May 2008 23:15:03 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
> >
> >
> >The FAA radars are what they are.
> >
> >You can arm wave forever about what they could be, but that isn't going
> >to change them.
>
> But decommissioning them, as part of the ADS-B implementation, will
> make them moot.

What is being lost? Primary radar is making a comeback after 2001, not
going away.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:15:32 -0400, Jennifer Allen >
wrote in >:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 23:15:03 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >The FAA radars are what they are.
>> >
>> >You can arm wave forever about what they could be, but that isn't going
>> >to change them.
>>
>> But decommissioning them, as part of the ADS-B implementation, will
>> make them moot.
>
>What is being lost? Primary radar is making a comeback after 2001, not
>going away.

I would enjoy reading supporting documentation for that assertion.


As this message thread refers to painting glider primary targets, it
would seem that post ADS-B, the FAA primary radars will be
decommissioned with the exception of those around the peripheral of
the US, hence my statement above.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rZePC9G7HCAJ:www.library.unt.edu/gpo/NCARC/whitepaper/costsav.doc+%2Bads-b+%2Bfunding+%2Bdecommissioning+%2Bradar+%2Bfaa&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Decommissioning only the primary radar would result in both cost
avoidance (no upgrades) and maintenance cost-savings. Annual savings
estimates are approximately $30M per year. (Note: For purposes of
national defense, the primary radars around the peripheral of the
United States, would not be decommissioned in the near term).



http://astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/ABIT07-Minutes_of_meeting_final.pdf
The FAA envisions decommissioning. more than 300 en route radars. ...



http://www.fcw.com/print/12_23/news/94989-1.html
Radar is an outdated technology, the FAA says. Moving to ADS-B will
let the agency eventually decommission some of the current ground
radars. According to an FAA report, radar is imperfect and sometimes
has trouble distinguishing airplanes from flocks of birds or patches
of rain.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast
FAA segment 3 (2015-2020)

ADS-B In equipage will be based on user perceived benefit, but is
expected to be providing increased situational awareness and
efficiency benefits within this segment. Those aircraft who choose to
equip in advance of any mandate will see benefits associated with
preferential routes and specific applications. Limited radar
decommissioning will begin in the time frame with an ultimate goal of
a 50% reduction in the Secondary Surveillance Radar infrastructure.



http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/enroute/surveillance_broadcast/program_office_news/media/Follow%20Up%20Contract%20Award_ADS-B%20Q&As_8-30-07_Final.pdf
Will there be a back-up system for ADS-B?

Yes, the FAA recognizes that a back-up system is needed in case of
problems with the satellite system. In 2006, a team from the FAA,
industry, and the military performed an analysis, taking into account
such things as the operational capability needed during an outage, the
length of time the back-up system would be expected to operate during
an outage, and any overlap between the back-up and ADS-B that would
result in a vulnerability. The agency adopted the team’s
recommendation to maintain about half the current network of
*secondary* radars as a back-up system in case of a GPS outage.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "Morgans" > writes:
>
>"Eric Greenwell" > wrote >
>> This corresponds with the Powersonic chart, so at -10C (15F), you have a 30%
>> loss of capacity. For winter flying, and spring or fall flying in places where
>> you can climb to, say, 10,000' agl, it's an important factor. Especially so,
>> when you know your encoder will likely be using it's heater, adding 50-150
>> milliamps to your current drain.
>
> Put a insulated cover around the battery, and the heat of discharge will keep
>it warm and the capacity up, unless it is seriously freakin' cold.

With a resistance of a few milliohms, a 1 amp discharge will only give a
few milliwatts of heat. I really doubt the battery will keep itself warm.
(After all warming the battery would consume energy from its stored capacity.)

Alan

[WingFlaps]

On May 4, 11:15*am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 8:37?am, Bob Noel >
> > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > ?WingFlaps > wrote:
> > > > How slow does a target need to be to be undisplayed -typically? I
> > > > would have thought that even a glider is fast (45 knots) compared to
> > > > usual clutter.
>
> > > Don't forget that it's the radial velocity that is detected by skin paint.
>
> > Aha, someone who understands Dopplewho knows!. data from the secondary
> > sites can fix that problem.
>
> The FAA radars are what they are.
>

I agree

Cheers

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >What is being lost? Primary radar is making a comeback after 2001, not
> >going away.
>
> I would enjoy reading supporting documentation for that assertion.
>
>
> As this message thread refers to painting glider primary targets, it
> would seem that post ADS-B, the FAA primary radars will be
> decommissioned with the exception of those around the peripheral of
> the US, hence my statement above.

I doubt that the primary radars in the US will be decommissioned

The air defense systems in the west (WADS) and the one in Rome, NY (NEADS)
have added the capability to take in feeds from domestic radars, including the
FAA enroute radars. This all occured post-9/11. (HI and AK systems also have
been upgraded). Search for Battle Control System Fixed.

Since before 1996, the FAA has been looking to get rid of primary radars.
9/11 was yet another excuse to try to get someone else to pay for the maintenance
and upgrades for NAS radars.


> http://www.fcw.com/print/12_23/news/94989-1.html
> Radar is an outdated technology, the FAA says. Moving to ADS-B will
> let the agency eventually decommission some of the current ground
> radars. According to an FAA report, radar is imperfect and sometimes
> has trouble distinguishing airplanes from flocks of birds or patches
> of rain.

As antiquated as RADAR is, I don't think we can rely on the "bad guys" using
cooperative surv technology like transponders or ADS-B out.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 08:47:53 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >What is being lost? Primary radar is making a comeback after 2001, not
>> >going away.
>>
>> I would enjoy reading supporting documentation for that assertion.
>>
>>
>> As this message thread refers to painting glider primary targets, it
>> would seem that post ADS-B, the FAA primary radars will be
>> decommissioned with the exception of those around the peripheral of
>> the US, hence my statement above.
>
>I doubt that the primary radars in the US will be decommissioned
>
Although that is inconsistent with the FAA information cited in the
link I posted, we can only hope that your intuition is accurate It
would be a grave mistake in my lay opinion. I believe decommissioning
radars was only mentioned by the FAA as a hastily considered attempt
to overcome the financial disincentive of implementing ADS-B; while
we're speculating, it was probably initially suggested by the
contractor(s) who is(are) lobbying for NextGen.


>The air defense systems in the west (WADS) and the one in Rome, NY (NEADS)
>have added the capability to take in feeds from domestic radars, including the
>FAA enroute radars. This all occured post-9/11. (HI and AK systems also have
>been upgraded). Search for Battle Control System Fixed.
>

How do the upgrades you mention imply that primary radars, located
other than around the periphery of the US, may be spared
decommissioning?

>Since before 1996, the FAA has been looking to get rid of primary radars.
>9/11 was yet another excuse to try to get someone else to pay for the maintenance
>and upgrades for NAS radars.
>

Without primary radars there is no way, other than intercepts, of
knowing the true position of a flight. To intentionally lose that
empirical capability seems shortsighted. But then my opinion is only
based on incomplete knowledge of the system. Perhaps there are
alternate sources for such information (doubtful). For some reason
(possibly because contractors believe that if they don't mention it,
no one will notice) the loss of empirical flight location is not
addressed in the proposed ADS-B implementation.

>
>> http://www.fcw.com/print/12_23/news/94989-1.html
>> Radar is an outdated technology, the FAA says. Moving to ADS-B will
>> let the agency eventually decommission some of the current ground
>> radars. According to an FAA report, radar is imperfect and sometimes
>> has trouble distinguishing airplanes from flocks of birds or patches
>> of rain.
>
>As antiquated as RADAR is, I don't think we can rely on the "bad guys" using
>cooperative surv technology like transponders or ADS-B out.

Precisely.

Why is it that you and I are able to recognize that, and the FAA
cannot? What are we overlooking?

[Peter Dohm]

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Morgans"
> > writes:
>>
>>"Eric Greenwell" > wrote >
>>> This corresponds with the Powersonic chart, so at -10C (15F), you have a
>>> 30%
>>> loss of capacity. For winter flying, and spring or fall flying in places
>>> where
>>> you can climb to, say, 10,000' agl, it's an important factor. Especially
>>> so,
>>> when you know your encoder will likely be using it's heater, adding
>>> 50-150
>>> milliamps to your current drain.
>>
>> Put a insulated cover around the battery, and the heat of discharge will
>> keep
>>it warm and the capacity up, unless it is seriously freakin' cold.
>
> With a resistance of a few milliohms, a 1 amp discharge will only give a
> few milliwatts of heat. I really doubt the battery will keep itself warm.
> (After all warming the battery would consume energy from its stored
> capacity.)
>
> Alan

The greater problem might be a need to remove the problem during charging,
when a lot more heat is likely to be generated.

Peter

[Tony Verhulst]

> (After all warming the battery would consume energy from its stored capacity.)

Sure, but a warm battery can deliver more power than a really cold battery.

Tony V.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> The air defense systems in the west (WADS) and the one in Rome, NY
> (NEADS) have added the capability to take in feeds from domestic radars,
> including the FAA enroute radars. This all occured post-9/11.
>

Initially, it was the other way round. Many of the present FAA enroute
radars are former ADC radars. The FAA expanded their enroute radar coverage
in the late fifties and early sixties by acquiring feeds on USAF radar.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 09:37:13 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

>
> The greater problem might be a need to remove the problem during charging,
> when a lot more heat is likely to be generated.
>
I use an automatic charger with bulk charge and float modes.
This unit is designed for 12v batteries in the 6-15Ah capacity range.
It outputs 14.7v at 1.5 amps in bulk mode. My batteries never even get
warm to the touch when on charge.

I'd suggest that if your batteries get hot on charge then there are only
three possibilities:

- you're using a fixed-rate charger with far too high a rate for
the battery.
- you're overcharging with a fixed-rate changer.
- your automatic charger is faulty.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >The air defense systems in the west (WADS) and the one in Rome, NY (NEADS)
> >have added the capability to take in feeds from domestic radars, including
> >the
> >FAA enroute radars. This all occured post-9/11. (HI and AK systems also
> >have
> >been upgraded). Search for Battle Control System Fixed.
> >
>
> How do the upgrades you mention imply that primary radars, located
> other than around the periphery of the US, may be spared
> decommissioning?

There would be little value in adding the ability to use the 200+ FAA primary
radars if they were going away soon. (ok, some of that 200+ number might be
beacon radar only)


> >As antiquated as RADAR is, I don't think we can rely on the "bad guys" using
> >cooperative surv technology like transponders or ADS-B out.
>
> Precisely.
>
> Why is it that you and I are able to recognize that, and the FAA
> cannot? What are we overlooking?

The FAA beancounters know that the FAA's responsibility does not include
tracking and identifying bad guys. The b'crats are only thinking about
their budget and ways to get other agencies to pay for things.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> I didn't imply that there was such a threat. This as most conversations
>> with Mr. McNicoll is an offshoot of the original conversation. Because he
>> made some comment that while not really wrong isn't how the real world
>> works.
>>
>
> What comment was that? What do you know of real world ATC?
>
>


See, you knee jerk answer so often that you don't even know what you are
responding too any more.

I've used the system as a pilot since 1979.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>>> TSA is in DHS, DHS does not dictate ATC policy.
>>>> No the POTUS does and he probably listens to DHS more than DOT.
>>>>
>>> What ATC policies have been dictated by the POTUS? Why would the POTUS
>>> rely on DHS for ATC policy over DOT? Would he rely on DOT over DHS on
>>> security matters?
>> And policy promulgated by DOT, DHS, DOD, is dictated by the POTUS.
>
> What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?
>

All of them.


>
>> In most cases it is actually dictated by people he selects to handle those
>> departments but the final authority rests on the desk of the POTUS.
>>
>
> What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT, DHS, or
> DOD?
>

All of them.

One would thinks that an employee would know who one's ultimate boss was
as well as those below him.


>
>> As for your other two questions think overlap.
>>
>
> Why can't you just answer the questions?
>
>

OK, I'll bet dollars to donuts DHS had some input on this one.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7210.672.pdf

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>> What comment was that? What do you know of real world ATC?
>>
>
> See, you knee jerk answer so often that you don't even know what you
> are responding too any more.
>

I'll take that to mean you can't identify the comment.


>
> I've used the system as a pilot since 1979.
>

I've used the system as a pilot since 1975. I've been an air traffic
controller since 1983, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and 15 years at Green Bay
ATCT. Whose experience do you think provides a better understanding of real
world ATC?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?
>>
>
> All of them.
>

Specify.


>>
>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT,
>> DHS, or DOD?
>>
>
> All of them.
>

Specify.


>>
>> Why can't you just answer the questions?
>>
>
> OK, I'll bet dollars to donuts DHS had some input on this one.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7210.672.pdf
>

Do you believe that alters how ATC services are provuded in some way?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?
>>>
>> All of them.
>>
>
> Specify.
>

What part of ALL of them don't you understand?


>
>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT,
>>> DHS, or DOD?
>>>
>> All of them.
>>
>
> Specify.


What part of ALL of them don't you understand?


>
>
>>> Why can't you just answer the questions?
>>>
>> OK, I'll bet dollars to donuts DHS had some input on this one.
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7210.672.pdf
>>
>
> Do you believe that alters how ATC services are provuded in some way?
>
>

I have know idea how the upper management wanted to do something and
neither do you even though you are a air traffic controller.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>> What comment was that? What do you know of real world ATC?
>>>
>> See, you knee jerk answer so often that you don't even know what you
>> are responding too any more.
>>
>
> I'll take that to mean you can't identify the comment.
>

You're right because I don't feel like going back and looking it up.


>
>> I've used the system as a pilot since 1979.
>>
>
> I've used the system as a pilot since 1975. I've been an air traffic
> controller since 1983, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and 15 years at Green Bay
> ATCT. Whose experience do you think provides a better understanding of real
> world ATC?
>
>

I don't see anything in the resume above that shows top level government
decision making experience. So my opinion is pretty close to yours.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> I doubt that the primary radars in the US will be decommissioned

> Since before 1996, the FAA has been looking to get rid of primary radars.
> 9/11 was yet another excuse to try to get someone else to pay for the
> maintenance
> and upgrades for NAS radars.

Is there a way that all of the TV station doppler weather radars could be made
to see airplanes, at the same time as looking at the weather?

I know they operate on different wavelengths, but could addition
transmitter/receivers be installed and used to supplement FAA radars?

Seems a shame to have all of those weather radars around, that could be helping
out tracking, or supplementing tracking aircraft.

I know there are probably a dozen reasons for this to not work, but could anyone
give a shot explaining what they are?
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of them.
>>>
>>
>> Specify.
>>
>
> What part of ALL of them don't you understand?
>

ALL of them? The US government got into the ATC business in 1936. The DOT
was established in 1967, I do not understand how ATC policies were
promulgated by DOT between 1936 and 1967. The DHS was established in 2003,
I do not understand how ATC policies were promulgated by DHS between 1936
and 2003. The DOD was established in 1947, I do not understand how ATC
policies were promulgated by DOD between 1936 and 1947. Please explain
these things to me. Help me to understand.


>>>>
>>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT,
>>>> DHS, or DOD?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of them.
>>>
>>
>> Specify.
>>
>
> What part of ALL of them don't you understand?
>

ALL of them? The US government got into the ATC business in 1936. The DOT
was established in 1967, I do not understand how ATC policies were
promulgated by Secretaries of Transportation between 1936 and 1967. The DHS
was established in 2003, I do not understand how ATC policies were
promulgated by Secretaries of Homeland Security between 1936 and 2003. The
DOD was established in 1947, I do not understand how ATC policies were
promulgated by Secretaries of Defense between 1936 and 1947. Please explain
these things to me. Help me to understand.


>>>>
>>>> Why can't you just answer the questions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bet dollars to donuts DHS had some input on this one.
>>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7210.672.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe that alters how ATC services are provided in some way?
>>
>
> I have know idea how the upper management wanted to do something and
> neither do you even though you are a air traffic controller.
>

That's not what I asked, I asked if you believe Notice JO 7210.672, the
document you cited, alters how ATC services are provided in some way. Do
you have "know idea" [sic] about what you believe? Do you believe an air
traffic controller would have no idea about how ATC services are provided?
Who do you believe directly provides ATC services?

Are you sure you've actually used the system as a pilot since 1979?

Are you related to Norm Melick?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>> I'll take that to mean you can't identify the comment.
>>
>
> You're right because I don't feel like going back and looking it up.
>

It's because there's nothing to look up.


>>
>> I've used the system as a pilot since 1975. I've been an air traffic
>> controller since 1983, nine years at Chicago ARTCC and 15 years at
>> Green Bay ATCT. Whose experience do you think provides a better
>> understanding of real world ATC?
>>
>
> I don't see anything in the resume above that shows top level
> government decision making experience.
>

We're not talking about top level government decision making experience,
we're talking about real world ATC experience.


>
> So my opinion is pretty close to yours.
>

It's not a matter of opinion.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by DOT, DHS, or DOD?
>>>>>
>>>> All of them.
>>>>
>>> Specify.
>>>
>> What part of ALL of them don't you understand?
>>
>
> ALL of them? The US government got into the ATC business in 1936. The DOT
> was established in 1967, I do not understand how ATC policies were
> promulgated by DOT between 1936 and 1967. The DHS was established in 2003,
> I do not understand how ATC policies were promulgated by DHS between 1936
> and 2003. The DOD was established in 1947, I do not understand how ATC
> policies were promulgated by DOD between 1936 and 1947. Please explain
> these things to me. Help me to understand.
>
>
>>>>> What ATC policies have been promulgated by the secretaries of DOT,
>>>>> DHS, or DOD?
>>>>>
>>>> All of them.
>>>>
>>> Specify.
>>>
>> What part of ALL of them don't you understand?
>>
>
> ALL of them? The US government got into the ATC business in 1936. The DOT
> was established in 1967, I do not understand how ATC policies were
> promulgated by Secretaries of Transportation between 1936 and 1967. The DHS
> was established in 2003, I do not understand how ATC policies were
> promulgated by Secretaries of Homeland Security between 1936 and 2003. The
> DOD was established in 1947, I do not understand how ATC policies were
> promulgated by Secretaries of Defense between 1936 and 1947. Please explain
> these things to me. Help me to understand.
>
>


Please feel free to insert the phrase "or its predecessors" where ever
you need that level of precision. But it all comes down to they were and
are promalgated by the POTUS or whomever he assigns to do it for him.


>>>>> Why can't you just answer the questions?
>>>>>
>>>> OK, I'll bet dollars to donuts DHS had some input on this one.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/at_notices/media/N7210.672.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you believe that alters how ATC services are provided in some way?
>>>
>> I have know idea how the upper management wanted to do something and
>> neither do you even though you are a air traffic controller.
>>
>
> That's not what I asked, I asked if you believe Notice JO 7210.672, the
> document you cited, alters how ATC services are provided in some way. Do
> you have "know idea" [sic] about what you believe? Do you believe an air
> traffic controller would have no idea about how ATC services are provided?
> Who do you believe directly provides ATC services?
>

I'm not talking about how the service is provided. I have never ever
questioned you on how an ATC service was provided and on several
occasions asked you a question about it even though I personally think
you are an ass and would very much rather Newps be around to answer from
a controllers perspective but he isn't around as much as you are.

What I am talking about is how regulations are made created at the
federal level. You seem to have a problem understanding how the US
government is set up though.

Do you think the FAA requested the TFRs around DC? No that plan came
from another department of government but it sure as hell effects ATC.

> Are you sure you've actually used the system as a pilot since 1979?

Yep, I am quite sure. But if you will keep a list posted of when and
where you will be the guy on the other end of the radio I will do my
best to not ever enter your airspace.

>
> Are you related to Norm Melick?
>
>

Nope never heard of him.


P.S.

I really wish spell checkers knew what I was thinking.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:11:44 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Are you related to Norm Melick?


Ummm... That would be the know-it-all in this message thread?

http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.ifr/13/msg13957.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:11:44 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Are you related to Norm Melick?
>
>
> Ummm... That would be the know-it-all in this message thread?
>
> http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.ifr/13/msg13957.htm
>

Affirmative.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:35:14 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:11:44 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Are you related to Norm Melick?
>>
>>
>> Ummm... That would be the know-it-all in this message thread?
>>
>> http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.ifr/13/msg13957.htm
>>
>
>Affirmative.
>

That was an interesting bit of research you did. Were you ever able
get a definitive answer from FSDO?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:35:14 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:11:44 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Are you related to Norm Melick?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ummm... That would be the know-it-all in this message thread?
>>>
>>> http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.ifr/13/msg13957.htm
>>>
>>
>> Affirmative.
>>
>
> That was an interesting bit of research you did. Were you ever able
> get a definitive answer from FSDO?
>

No. Nobody, in or out of FSDO, has ever identified any FAR that would be
violated by the operation I proposed.

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 11:35:14 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 09:11:44 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>>> > wrote in
>>>> >:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you related to Norm Melick?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ummm... That would be the know-it-all in this message thread?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.forpilots.com/archive/rec.aviation.ifr/13/msg13957.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Affirmative.
>>>
>>
>> That was an interesting bit of research you did. Were you ever able
>> get a definitive answer from FSDO?
>>
>
> No. Nobody, in or out of FSDO, has ever identified any FAR that would
> be violated by the operation I proposed.

Interesting responses from the FSDOs. In the 6 years since you posed your
scenario to the FSDOs, have any of the FARs been changed that might now
make use of a handheld GPS during IFR illegal?

For that matter, is there anything in the FARs that dictate the equipment
the pilot _must_ use during IFR, or the manner in which the pilot must use
any of the required and installed equipment? I'm rather hazy on the FARs
for IFR but nothing comes to mind.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Interesting responses from the FSDOs. In the 6 years since you posed your
> scenario to the FSDOs, have any of the FARs been changed that might now
> make use of a handheld GPS during IFR illegal?
>

No.


>
> For that matter, is there anything in the FARs that dictate the equipment
> the pilot _must_ use during IFR, or the manner in which the pilot must use
> any of the required and installed equipment? I'm rather hazy on the FARs
> for IFR but nothing comes to mind.
>

Not directly, but specific operations can certainly imply the use of
specific equipment. For example, a VOR approach that lacks a GPS overlay.
But a direct clearance does not imply the use of any specific equipment.